Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Warwick) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wellington, Salop) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Worthing) Bill [Lords].

Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Worthing) Bill [Lords] be suspended in order that the same may be proceeded with in the next Session of Parliament.

Ordered,
That if the said Bill be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been so read and committed.

Ordered,
That all Petitions presented in the present Session against the said Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament; and that all grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard, and all notices of objection given in the present Session within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees, shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament.

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House."—(The Deputy-Chairman.)

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS IN EGYPT (INCOME TAX).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that officers stationed in Egypt are charged full British income tax on their British dividends when they are non-resident in England, and that they have no concessions made to them for travelling home on leave such as are given to officers at home; and whether, as some regiments are kept out there for eight years or more, he will consider altering the regulations and treating them by the same rules that apply to officers on foreign service or, alternatively, give them the same travelling concessions when coming home on leave as apply to those at home?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): As regards the first part of the question, I understand that income from sources in the United Kingdom is, in general, liable to Income Tax whether the recipient is resident in the United Kingdom or not. As regards the remainder of the question, officers serving in Egypt come under the same regulations governing facilities for leave as officers serving in other garrison stations abroad. Except in the case of leave granted on the specific recommendation of a medical board, all travelling concessions to officers on leave are granted by the railway arid steamship companies concerned. Officers in Egypt may obtain concessions from the Egyptian State railways and from certain of the steamship companies, and the concessions made by the railways in this country are the same for officers on leave from Egypt as they are for officers serving at home.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask my hon. Friend whether exactly the same
Income Tax rules are applied to officers in India on foreign service as are applied in the case of officers in Egypt?

Mr. COOPER: I understand that they are.

MR. BAILLIE-STEWART.

Mr. McGOVERN: 3.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is prepared to have the whole of the evidence in the Lieutenant Baillie-Stewart case submitted to a legal committee of Members of the House of Commons, and provide an opportunity for the taking of fresh evidence, which is now available, in view of the growing belief in Baillie Stewart's innocence both in and outside the fighting services?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware of any fresh evidence having become available. I have no reason to think that there is any growing belief in any quarter in Mr. Baillie-Stewart's innocence. In point of fact he made a full confession of his guilt soon after he was convicted.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that four generals, nine colonels and 61 other officers have already written expressing their complete belief in his innocence, and that Baillie-Stewart within the last fortnight has completely denied that he made any confession of guilt, and still maintains his innocence of this charge?

Mr. COOPER: I am not aware of either of those facts.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the hon. Gentleman produce a written statement signed as to a confession of guilt by Baillie- Stewart?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that it would be in the public interest to publish that.

Mr. McGOVERN: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. WALLACE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that concern exists in Scotland on
account of the fact that after 31st December, 1933, a number of unemployed men and women will cease to receive medical benefit as hitherto Administered under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether he will initiate the necessary legislative steps to provide for a continuance of this medical benefit?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter was the subject of a Debate on the 10th instant, and I would refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on that occasion. In view of the need for maintaining the National Health Insurance Scheme on an actuarial basis, I regret that it is not possible to take the course suggested in the latter part of the question.

Mr. WALLACE: May I Ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the serious financial position of these persons, this very important subject will receive further consideration at his hands?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking in reply to the supplementary question.

RED DEER (CONTROL).

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now announce the Government's proposals for preventing further damage to pastoral and arable farms by red deer?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's proposals for the control of red deer. A draft of a Bill on the subject has been prepared, but a further consultation 'at an early date with the parties interested will be necessary in view of the difficulties of framing a workable Measure.

Mr. STEWART: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that fully six months ago the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland announced that this Bill was under consideration, and, in view of the very serious damage done by this nuisance, will he give us an assurance that all expedition will be shown in preparing and submitting this Bill?

Sir G. COLLINS: Since the former answer was given, the Bill has been drafted, but several legal difficulties have arisen in regard to the drafting of the
Bill, and we are very shortly to see the parties interested, because we realise the desirability of proceeding.

HOUSING.

Mr. TRAIN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will prepare a statement of the losses at present being incurred by the local authorities with a, rateable value of less than £250,000 on schemes being operated under the various Housing Acts since 1918, giving the losses for each local authority separately?

Sir G. COLLINS: A statement containing the information desired is being prepared, and I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.

LIVESTOCK (MARKETING CHARGES).

Mr. LEONARD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, owing to the methods of marketing, stock-owners in Scotland are faced with charges which amount on an average to 5s. for a sheep, 10s. for a pig and 40s. for an ox; and if he will consider finding ways and means by which these charges can be reduced?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware that the existing system of marketing live stock is regarded in many quarters as unduly expensive, but I must not be taken as accepting without question all the figures mentioned by the hon. Member. A scheme regulating the marketing of pigs for the manufacture of bacon is in force throughout Great Britain, and the Scottish Reorganisation Commission is preparing a scheme for regulating the sale of fat cattle and sheep in Scotland. The report of that commission will doubtless deal with methods and costs of marketing.

Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take speedy action in this matter if I present to him figures substantiating the figures in the question?

Sir G. COLLINS: I shall be very happy to receive the figures referred to.

SMALLHOLDINGS, BALMEDIE.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state whether the estate of Balmedie, near Aberdeen, has been
acquired by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the constitution of smallholdings; how many holdings it is proposed to create on this estate; how many holdings have already been offered to applicants; whether any applicants have refused to accept such holdings and, if so, on what grounds; and whether the conditions of let offered included security of tenure and fair rents as defined by the Small Landholders Acts?

Sir G. COLLINS: Part of the estate of Balmedie was acquired at Whitsunday, 1933, for land settlement. A scheme for 36 holdings is under consideration. No holdings have yet been offered to applicants. The remaining parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Sir M. WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that applicants have been invited, that the rent has been indicated to them, and that they have stated or indicated that they could not accept the smallholdings on the terms suggested?

Sir G. COLLINS: I should require to have notice of that question.

Sir M. WOOD: Have I not given sufficient notice already to enable the right hon. Gentleman to answer my supplementary question?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have told my hon. Friend that the scheme is under consideration, and no holdings, so far as my knowledge goes, have been offered.

Sir M. WOOD: Does that mean that they have not been offered in writing? Is not the suggestion made by me correct, that they were shown the holdings and that the rent was indicated to them and that they said that they simply could not take over the holdings?

Sir G. COLLINS: I hesitate to contra diet my hon. Friend but this information has been placed at my disposal this morning. The answer I have given, but, in view of the hon. Member's representations to me, I will make further inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' WELFARE (PLAYGROUND, WOOD END, STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. MANDER: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that application has been made to the Miners'
Welfare Fund Committee for a grant towards the equipment of a children's playground at Wood End, Staffordshire, and that both the Cannock Chase committee and the South Staffordshire committee have declined to consider the matter on the ground that the place in question is within the area of the other authority; and whether he will take steps to see that a decision shall be reached as to the correct authority to which application should be made?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have referred this question to the Miners' Welfare Committee, who are consulting the two district committees concerned. I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

MINES (TEMPERATURE AND DEPTH).

Mr. TINKER: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines if His Majesty's inspectors have drawn his attention to the high temperature prevailing in the deep mines, in some instances exceeding 100 degrees; and will he consider amending the Coal Mines Act so as to prevent men working where the temperature exceeds a certain point?

Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his previous question on 11th July, when I said that the question of high temperatures in some of the deeper mine workings is constantly engaging the attention of the inspectors, and is also being studied by the Hot and Deep Mines Committee. It is true that the air—dry bulb—temperature in some deep workings reaches, and may slightly exceed 100° Fahrenheit, but the associated wet bulb temperature seldom exceeds 80° Fahrenheit, and it is the latter that is the more important when considering the effect of temperature upon the health of the workers. The investigations of the Hot and Deep Mines Committee have shown that acclimatised men can work without undue fatigue in wet bulb temperatures of over 80°, and there is no evidence that such work does any serious injury to the men's health or shortens their lives.

Mr. TINKER: May I take it that the hon. Member holds that men should work in a temperature of 100° Fahrenheit, and that he is telling the House that men can work in comfort in that kind of heat?

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if this is not the temperature in the stokeholds of His Majesty's ships in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot give a general answer to a supplementary question of that kind. It depends upon many circumstances. My hon. Friend will remember that there have been 17 reports by the Committee of the Institute of Mining Engineers on this complicated and very difficult subject, and there is a general statement by Dr. Haldane in 1929, which I shall be very pleased to discuss with him, but I cannot do it by means of supplementary questions.

Mr. TINKER: When may we expect a definite reply and when will the report be given to the House?

Mr. BROWN: There is a misunderstanding. This is a committee of experts under the direction of Dr. Haldane and not under my Department. It is a committee set up by the Institute of Mining Engineers that is carrying out research in this matter.

Mr. T. SMITH: Does the hon. Member intend personally to investigate these hot mines?

Mr. BROWN: I have no objection to doing so if any hon. Member is interested in any particular mine.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that coal miners sometimes have to work very nearly naked because of the heat, and does he not think that it is very dangerous to work under conditions under which these men have to work?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware that in some cases that is so, and in other cases it is an advantage to have clothing on. It depends upon the circumstances. If my hon. Friend will refer to the report, he will find those things discussed in detail.

Mr. TINKER: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines there are over 500 yards deep, 750 yards deep, and how many exceed 1,000 yards deep; and can he say what is the greatest depth at the working face that any mine is at present working?

Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Tables beginning on
page 188 of Vol. 3 of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1925. These give particulars for the years 1913 and 1924 of the tonnage of coal classified according to the depths of the seams worked. I regret that no later general information is available. So far as I am aware, the answer to the second part of the question is about 1,250 yards.

'HULTON'S COLLIERY, CHEQUERBENT.

Mr. TINKER: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to what happened on Thursday, 9th November, at Hulton's Colliery, Chequerbent, near Bolton, where the men working in the three-quarters mine were ordered to stop in the mine from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; and, as this appears to be a breach of the 7½ Hours Act, will he say what action he intends to take?

Mr. E. BROWN: My attention has been drawn to this case but I have not yet completed my inquiries, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will put down another question in about a week's time.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Member aware that the men have had to play two days because of the attitude of the management in insisting that they should work from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and that they have gone to work on the understanding that they are able to come up at 2.30? Does the hon. Member think the employers should be allowed to break the law in this way?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will put his question down, he will find that I shall give him a definite answer, as the result of my inquiry, in about a week's time.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Will the hon. Member be good enough to tell the House whether his Department has power to take action against the management of a colliery for ordering men to break the law?

Mr. BROWN: There are powers in the Act of 1908, but, as the hon. Member and the House know, it is not easy to decide, in modern circumstances, what is and what is not illegal overtime. I am making inquiries into the allegation in this case, and it is in regard to this specific case that I shall give my reply.

Mr. DAVIES: I press my question. Has the Department power to take legal action against the manager of a colliery for ordering his workpeople to break the law?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that just before the House rose I announced prosecutions in certain cases. I would point out that this is not a question of overtime, but whether it is illegal under the Act. If it is illegal, we have power.

EXPORTS, GOOLE.

Mr. T. SMITH: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity of coal exported from the port of Goole during the nine months ended September, 1933, and the comparative figures for the same period in 1932, 1931, and 1930?

Mr. E. BROWN: The quantity of coal exported from the port of Goole during the nine months ended September, 1933, was 512,127 tons, as compared with 548,139 tons, 764,509 tons and 1,097,032 tons during the corresponding periods in 1932, 1931 and 1930, respectively.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any complaints that boats going into Goole cannot get coal?

Mr. BROWN: I have had complaints, but the complaints have not been by any means substantiated. I would point out that the high shipments occurred during the period 1928–30, when the Collieries Central Commercial Association operated a scheme providing for a substantial export of coal from the Humber. If the hon. Member will invite me to supply figures back to 1928, he will find that in the state of the export trade Goole has not had an unfair share of the trade, as the figures he asks for tend to show.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not a fact that Goole's export of coal is down, while that of other ports is up, compared with a year ago?

Mr. BROWN: That may be so, but there are many circumstances underlying it.

Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what effect the General Strike had upon the export of coal?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when the operations of the Empire Marketing Board as at present constituted will terminate; and if he has yet decided upon the organisation which will undertake the continuance of the work performed by the board on behalf of British agriculture?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this matter which appeared in the Press on the 9th August, of which I am sending him a copy. The report of the recent Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation (Cmd. 4335) was accepted by all the Governments concerned at the end of July and steps were taken to carry its recommendations into effect. This involved the discontinuance of the Empire Marketing Board as such after the 30th September. As regards the latter part of the question, as indicated in the Press statement, certain of the services carried on by the Board are being continued, but it would be appropriate, I think, for any specific inquiries concerning the continuance of the work carried on by the board on behalf of agriculture in the United Kingdom to be addressed to the Ministers responsible.

Mr. HANNON: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he realises that it is false economy to cease maintaining the activities of a great organisation of this quality, which was doing so valuable a work for the Empire and for agriculture in this country `I Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put anything in its place?

Mr. THOMAS: No words can adequately express the Government's appreciation of the work of the Empire Marketing Board. We clearly pointed out our views to the British Commonwealth as a whole—it was a Commonwealth institution—but they felt that they could not go on, and there was no alternative but to accept the recommendation; but we, His Majesty's Government in this country, are endeavouring to maintain as much of the work for the United Kingdom as we can.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent further preferences have been granted to British exports by British Dominions during the past three months?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In the Australian Budget, introduced on 4th October, proposals were introduced resulting in increased preferences, on a wide range of United Kingdom goods, and many of these proposals are in operation. The details of these changes are very long; and for full particulars I would refer the hon. Member to the issues of the Board of Trade Journal dated 12th and 19th October. Otherwise, so far as I am aware, the position in regard to preferences in the Dominions has not changed during the past three months.

TREATIES (MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT).

Mr. CHORLTON: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, have been taken with regard to the denunciation of the most-favoured-nation clause?

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the advantages obtained by this country in recent trade agreements are being largely nullified by the most-favoured-nation clause in our commercial treaties, he will take the earliest opportunity to eliminate this clause from existing treaties?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 17th July last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton).

Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if experience since that time would not cause him to change what he said then; and does he not think we have a great deal to gain by the denunciation of this clause?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My answer to my hon. Friend was given on 17th July. There has been no change since 17th July.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: How is it possible to make satisfactory tariff
arrangements with one State when consideration has to be given to 30, 40 or 50 other States and to the effect which those negotiations will have under the most-favoured-nation clause?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We must test each case on its merits.

Sir W. DAVISON: But you cannot do that.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Chorlton.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. CHORLTON: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any further action is to be taken to help the manufacturers of this country against Japanese competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment on Thursday last.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of:

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 35.
to ask the President of the Board of Trade the volume of Japanese cotton piece-goods imported into the mandated territories in the Congo Basin during the nine months ended September, 1933, or for the latest available period?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Vice-Admiral Taylor.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: On a point of Order. May I put a supplementary question to the President of the Board of Trade arising out of Question 34 on the Paper?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have passed from that question. I would point out that we have a great many questions on the Paper to-day.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Question No. 34 was my own question, and I was very desirous of asking a supplementary question upon it. May I not do so now?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to ask Question No. 35? I have called him for that.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Question 35.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The mandated territories in the Congo Basin conventional trade zone comprise Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi, and the south-eastern portion of the Cameroons. Separate particulars in respect of the latter area are not published in the trade returns issued by the French authorities, but as regards the other two territories I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the required information for the latest available period.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the importation of Japanese goods should continue at the present volume without special steps being taken to prevent it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question of Japanese competition is under consideration at the present time both inside and outside the House.

Following is the table:


The following table shows the total quantity of cotton piece goods imported into the under mentioned territories from Japan during the periods specified:


Description
Tanganyika
Ruanda-Urundi


January to June, 1933
Year 1932.


Cotton piece goods:
Yards.
Kilogrammes.


Unbleached 
3,878,708
163,484


Bleached
994,432
1,086


Printed
1,753,662*
24,825


Dyed
3,234,747
33,224


Coloured
1,486,904
—


Other
—
170


* Excluding imports of printed khangas from Japan which, if any, are relatively insignificant.

Major PROCTER: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the increasing quantities of Japanese textiles imported into home and Empire markets which are copies of British registered designs; and whether he will take such measures as may be necessary to have such goods confiscated at the ports of entry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as the question relates to Empire markets outside the United Kingdom it is one for the Government of the Dominion or Colony concerned. In regard to the United
Kingdom no information is available as to whether the importation of Japanese textiles bearing British registered designs is on the increase. Legal remedies are open to the owner of the registered design against the sale of goods infringing the copyright, but there is no power under which such goods could be confiscated at the ports of entry on the sole ground that they bore a design registered in this country. The enforcement of such a measure in the United Kingdom would present insuperable practical difficulties.

Major PROCTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday last the Egyptian customs officials confiscated Japanese textile goods because they bore the label "Made in Manchester"; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that something is done to stop this pirating of our designs?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If similar cases arise in this country, we shall certainly see that action is taken.

Mr. LEVY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that designs which are copies of our English manufacturers are imported into this country at the present time; and what action does he intend to take to stop it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already answered that question in my original answer.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in order to restore our shipping industry and to conserve our own interests, he will consider making it compulsory that imports into this country for our own market shall be carried in our own ships by taking foreign arrivals at British ports in proportion to the subsidy they enjoy or, alternately, by instituting subsidies ourselves?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 9th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans).

Mr. RANKIN: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the representations made to him from British shipping interests as to the action of the South African Government in subsidising
two Italian shipping lines, what has been the nature of his reply?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee was informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that the question was engaging the earnest attention of the Government and that such action as is possible in the matter was being taken. The Government have communicated with His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa, whose reply has been received and is under consideration.

STANDARD MEASURES (CUBIC YARD).

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider an agreed method for the standardisation of the cubic yard as the legal measure when sand, ballast and similar materials are sold by volume; and whether also, for the protection of the public, he will require that the cubic capacity shall be marked on road vehicles used for the conveyance of such materials?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been drawn to the difficulties which have arisen in the sale of sand, ballast and similar materials, and I am aware that there is a demand for legislation to legalise the cubic yard as a standard of measure for these materials. I am considering what steps should be taken.

GERMAN EXPORTS (SCRIP SYSTEM).

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in suitable cases, he will operate Section 5 (1) and Article 21 of the First Schedule of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, to meet the action of the German Government which has created a price for certain German exports by means of the new scrip system under which those exports receive State aid as defined by the above-mentioned Act; and is he aware that the scrip system has brought such German goods, if imported into Great Britain, within the defined prohibitions arising from direct or indirect creation of prices through State action on the part of any foreign country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Even if the action of the German Government in this matter could be regarded as bringing German exports within the provisions of Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, such
goods could not be prohibited from importation into this country so long as the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 is in force.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do, in view of the fact that this scrip system neutralises the British tariff on the importation of German goods and also undermines British exports to other markets?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was asked what was the bearing of this on Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act and I have answered that question.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: But I have asked the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do. Is he aware that the rebate on German exports is an export bounty, and that therefore these goods are dumped goods?

BEEF IMPORTS.

Mr. EVERARD: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreements were made at the Ottawa Conference by the New Zealand and Australian authorities as to the imports of beef into Great Britain during the year 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to Article 6 and Schedule H of the Ottawa Agreement with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and to Article 4 of the Ottawa Agreement with His Majesty's Government in New Zealand and the letter referred to in that Article. The agreements are set out in the First Schedule to the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932.

Mr. EVERARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether before next year the Government intend to revise the amount of the quotas in view of the desperate state of the trade in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The amount of the quotas is under consideration from time to time and has, I think, been dealt with twice, comparatively recently. We shall watch the tendency very carefully and take action thereon.

Mr. EVERARD: 37 and 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the quantities of beef imported into this
country in the year ended 30th June, 1932, from New Zealand and Australia, respectively;
(2) the total imports of beef from New Zealand and Australia, respectively, from the beginning of the year 1933 to date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The quantity of beef imported into the United Kingdom in the year ended 30th June, 1932, from Australia was 1,124,000 cwts. and from New Zealand was 377,000 cwts. The corresponding figures for the nine months ended the 30th September, 1933, are from Australia 821,000 cwts. and from New Zealand 632,000 cwts. These figures do not include tinned, canned, etc., beef, salted beef, nor extracts and essences.

EXPORTS.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value per head of population of the domestic exports of manufactured goods in the year 1932 from the United Kingdom to the United States of America, France, and Germany?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The value of the domestic exports of articles classed in the trade returns as wholly or mainly manufactured consigned from the United Kingdom to the United States of America during 1932 was 1s. 11d. per head of the population of that country. The corresponding figure for France was 4s. 1d. and for Germany 2s. 5d.

CHINA.

Mr. RANKIN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has under consideration the conclusion of a trade agreement with China and, if not, whether, in view of the importance of China for a market for British textiles, he will consider the advisability of entering into early negotiations with a view to such an end?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In present circumstances it is not possible to undertake negotiations for the conclusion of a general trade agreement with China, but the situation is being watched, and I can assure my hon. Friend that every possible opportunity will be taken for assisting British trade in China.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can
make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to emigration and settlement of migrants from this country to various parts of the overseas territories of the self-governing Dominions?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The question of the policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom when opportunities for any considerable migration arise again is at present under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. HANNON: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that for years this important question of migration within the Empire has been occupying the attention of successive governments, and can he say when we shall have a declaration of a practical policy in regard to the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend must be aware that before you give any encouragement to people in this country—I may say that we have thousands ready to go—the Dominions themselves must be equally ready to receive them. The Government are not going to be responsible for sending people to the Dominions unless the Dominions themselves are ready to give them a fair chance.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any early negotiations with the Dominions to bring this question into the region of practical politics?

Mr. THOMAS: Every opportunity is taken to discuss the matter with the Dominions. At the last conference, when representatives of the Dominions were here, discussions took place. In addition, I have a committee sitting continuously to consider this subject, but it must be fully considered and dealt with when there is real practical work to do.

Brigadier- General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that if any great scheme of migration is worked out it, will take at least two years to prepare the plans, and, in view of that fact and in view of past deplorable results of migration, will the right hon. Gentleman not give us same encouragement to believe that the Government are now thinking two years ahead in the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, I unhesitatingly say that the Government are now considering it, but I only emphasise the harm that would result from an announcement that there was likely to be migration now. That is the point that I wanted to emphasise, in justice to the Dominions as well as our own people. Larger plans will be considered on a much broader and wider basis than anything that has ever been considered before.

Brigadier-General NATION: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, as a result of the communications that have passed with his Department during last summer concerning the Hornby scheme, settlers are likely to proceed to Canada in the near future?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir. I understand that in the papers which he has circulated regarding his scheme, General Hornby makes it clear that he does not advocate any immediate migration to Canada from this country?

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. HANNON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if during the Parliamentary Recess he has had any further negotiations with the Irish Free State for a conference on the matters under dispute between the Government of the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government; and if any measures are in progress to dispose of the existing difficulties?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I think it will be convenient, in reply to my hon. Friend's question, to state the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with regard to the most recent developments in the Irish Free State and in particular to the three Bills, now before the Irish Free State Parliament, for the amendment of the Irish Free State Constitution. I am sure the House will forgive me if my answer is rather long.
We are advised that the legislation conflicts in important respects with the Treaty of 1921, and its passage therefore involves a further repudiation of the obligations entered into by the Irish Free State under that Treaty. We have already made perfectly clear the view which we take of action of this kind. Quite apart from any question of legality we look upon it as a repudiation of an honourable settlement. No modification of the Treaty
can properly be made except by agreement between the two countries. But that is not the only aspect of the matter.
The real significance of the Bills is that they clearly indicate an intention gradually to eliminate the Crown from the Constitution of the Irish Free State. Mr. de Valera has told us (as I said in the House of Commons on the 17th June, 1932) that his ultimate aim is the recognition of a United Ireland as a Republic with some form of association with the British Commonwealth in some circumstances and for some reasons and the recognition of the King as the head of the association. Any such proposals would be totally unacceptable to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
Our view can be clearly stated. The Declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926 as to the relationship of Great Britain and the Dominions under the Crown must be accepted as the basis of the constitutional position of the Irish Free State within the Empire. That Declaration is clearly inconsistent with a state of things under which the Irish Free State would be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations for some purposes and not for all, and would cease to be united with Great Britain and the Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown.
Our conception of membership of the British Commonwealth is something entirely different. The Irish Free State as a member of that Commonwealth is, as Mr. de Valera himself must now have learned, completely free to order her own affairs. Membership of the Commonwealth confers great advantages, which by her own action the Irish Free State is tending to lose; the privileges of common citizenship, economic advantages in trading with the rest of the Empire, and the opportunity of powerful influence in international affairs, in concert with the other members of the Commonwealth, in the cause of world peace.
Those privileges carry with them responsibilities, respect for the Crown, loyal observance of engagements, the spirit of friendship and co-operation with the other members of the British Commonwealth. It is our desire to see the Irish Free State taking her full part art a member of the Commonwealth, not grudgingly, but of her own free will,
accepting the responsibilities and enjoying the privileges. If she renounce the one, she cannot hope to enjoy the other.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. I should like to know whether, when there are so many questions on the Order Paper, such a long reply should not come at the end of Questions.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not exactly a point of Order.

Mr. HANNON: In view of the momentous character of the answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any steps, in consultation with the Dominions or in consultation with the Irish Free State, to emphasise the outline of the policy of His Majesty's Government as indicated to the House this afternoon?

Mr. THOMAS: The dispute between the Irish Free State and ourselves is a dispute which affects the two countries only. We have never dragged, and do not intend to drag, any one of the Dominions into the internal dispute between ourselves and the Irish Free State. The other issues involved in my answer are matters which are separate and apart from that.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any concrete steps? Is it not possible to end this dispute by raising the import duties on produce from Southern Ireland?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask whether this very important statement does or does not indicate any action that His Majesty's Government propose to take?

Mr. THOMAS: It clearly indicates, and was intended to indicate, not only to the people of this country but to the Irish Free State as well, the unanimous decision of His Majesty's Government. No provocative action of any kind is being taken by us, but, although the original dispute on the annuities was an issue between us prior to the Recess, the three Bills introduced by the Irish Free State Government, the purpose of which I have indicated in my answer, show clearly the determination of the Irish Free State Government in this matter. It is unfair and unwise not to indicate clearly to them
and to the country the serious view which His Majesty's Government take of the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it mean that if any of three Bills becomes law we shall be free from the bondage of Ireland?

Mr. LEWIS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to state to the last convenient date the extent to which the Irish Free State is in default on its obligations to this country and the amount the Irish Free State Government has expended by way of export bonuses on those Irish goods which are now subject to special import duties in this country?

Mr. THOMAS: The total default of the Irish Free State up to the 1st April, 1933, was £4,774,000, and for the period 1st April-31st October, 1933, £2,473,000. As regards the second part of the question, according to statements made in the Irish Free State Parliament, the total expenditure of the Irish Free State in bounties on agricultural exports was for the period ending 1st April, 1933, £1,345,000 and for the period 1st April to 27th May, 1933, £256,000. I have seen no later figures of actual expenditure; but the amount provided in the Irish Free State Estimates for the current financial year for expenditure on bounties is £2,450,000.

PROTECTORATES (ADMINISTRATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps he is taking to improve the administration of the Protectorates as to education, agricultural progress, and personnel of the administration?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: As my right hon. and gallant Friend is aware, Commissions have recently reported on the financial and economic position of Swaziland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and their recommendations, so far as they have not already been carried out, are receiving the most careful consideration. It will be appreciated that all these territories are passing through a period of severe economic depression, which in the case of the two already mentioned has necessitated recourse to grants-in-aid from the
United Kingdom Exchequer, and that there are consequently difficulties in the way of taking any steps which would have the effect of increasing their current administrative expenditure. I can however assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that the problems to which he refers are not being lost sight of and have, in fact, lately formed the subject of discussions with Sir Herbert Stanley, the High Commissioner, during his visit to this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of recruiting for positions in these Protectorates on the same lines as the Colonial Office recruits its staff?

Mr. THOMAS: That is one of the most urgent of the matters now being considered.

BECHUANALAND (CHIEF TSHEKEDI).

Mr. LUNN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what were the difficulties apprehended on the occasion of the suspension of Chief Tshekedi Khama which required the transport of 200 Royal Marines from Cape Town to maintain order?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the High Commissioner for South Africa considered that the presence of a naval escort was desirable as a precautionary measure and by way of safeguard. I may mention that the Bechuanaland Protectorate Police Force were at the time largely engaged on special work, from which it was impossible to release them, in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Protectorate.

Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that the Bechuanaland people are especially distinguished, and have been for many years, by their loyalty to the Crown?

Mr. THOMAS: I certainly appreciate that fact, but they are more loyal since my decision, if that be possible, than they were before.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say now who is to pay the bill for sending these marines up to Bechuanaland?

Mr. THOMAS: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will answer it.

Mr. LUNN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in what respects and on what dates Chief Tshekedi Khama has flouted His Majesty's administration, as stated by the Acting High Commissioner in announcing his suspension?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by detailing the past differences between the Bechuanaland Protectorate Administration and the Acting Chief Tshekedi. I hope that in view of the recent promise by the Acting Chief that he will at all times work in harmony and loyal cooperation with the administration, such difficulties will not recur.

Mr. LUNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is grossly unfair to bring forward all these charges without attempting to substantiate them?

Mr. THOMAS: I deprecate raising an issue of so important a character when, having regard to all the circumstances, the whole of the parties were satisfied. I cannot see what useful purpose is to be served by referring to the matter again.

Mr. LUNN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the reinstatement of Chief Tshekedi Khama involves the withdrawal of the serious charges on which his suspension was based; and what steps have been taken to make it clear to the chief's people and to the public what is the present position?

Mr. THOMAS: The ground on which Acting Chief Tshekedi was suspended was that he claimed, in a document read by him to the Commission of Inquiry, that he was entitled to exercise jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over all inhabitants, including Europeans with their consent, in the Bamangwato Territory. The High Commissioner took the view, a view with which I fully concur, that so long as that claim was maintained, it was not possible to permit the Acting Chief to continue to exercise his functions. As soon, however, as the Acting Chief, in a letter which was publicly read to the tribe on the occasion of his reinstatement, made it clear that he with-
drew this claim, the High Commissioner recommended, and I was able to advise His Majesty, that the period of suspension should be terminated. The grounds on which the Acting Chief had been suspended, and the fact that he withdrew the claim to which I have referred, were made clear to the members of the Chief's tribe in the announcement made by the High Commissioner at the formal ceremony of reinstatement of the Acting Chief.

MIGRANT LAND SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.

Captain STRICKLAND: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs for a statement as to the present position of negotiations with the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments regarding the British settlers; whether the contractual rights of the British Government have been safeguarded; and whether he is satisfied that the terms of settlement are equitable?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The position is that certain proposals have been agreed upon between the Victoria and Commonwealth Governments and that those proposals are embodied in legislation which is now before the Victorian Parliament, and will, I hope, be passed into law at an early date. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have informed His Majesty s Government in the Commonwealth that they regard the arrangements proposed as in all the circumstances a reasonable adjustment of the matters inquired into by the Royal Commission and that, on the assumption that those arrangements will be promptly carried into effect, they arc prepared, in relation to the migrant settlers involved, to waive the contractual rights which are vested in them under the Migration Agreements against His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Captain STRICKLAND: Did the Government have it within their power to influence the settlement in any way? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a flat rate contribution by the Governments in question to the settlers, irrespective of the amount of capital involved, is satisfactory?

Mr. THOMAS: Immediately the Government heard of the distress of these settlers we took steps to press for an
inquiry. We pressed for years for an inquiry. Immediately the inquiry concluded and recommendations were made we pressed the Victorian Government for a prompt settlement. It is not for me to argue the merits of the settlement, but it is clearly for me to indicate that throughout we have always had a moral obligation to the settlers and that we have done our best to promote the best settlement possible.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is satisfied with the settlement. Has he taken any steps to ascertain whether the migrants affected are satisfied? They are British subjects.

Mr. THOMAS: I know, but it would be impossible for me to ask every migrant whether he is satisfied. It would be like asking my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the Government.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the fact that through the ordinary channels, intimation has been made that this matter can be discussed, and as the details of the settlement are not in the possession of the House, would it not be better to have the question discussed on the Adjournment?

Mr. THOMAS: I gathered through the usual channels that there was a desire to discuss this matter to-night, and I understand that that arrangement stands. The Government are quite ready for the discussion to take place.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman had a man on the spot; the British Government had a representative on the Commission. Has that representative of the Government taken steps to find out how this settlement is being received by the migrants themselves? Has he reported?

Mr. THOMAS: We are well aware of the strong feeling of the migrants and that numbers of them are dissatisfied. That is obvious. But the question that affects the Government is this: Having regard to all the circumstances and the fact that there are other settlers concerned was this the best settlement that in our judgment could be made? Obviously, we would have liked the settlement to be better, but it is the best settlement that was possible.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion
Affairs whether, in view of the admission by the Premier of Victoria, on 9th November, that real justice had not been done to the British settlers, the terms offered to them with the concurrence of the Home Government are to be regarded as final?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the admission by the Premier of Victoria that real justice had not been done to the British migrants settled in that State, under arrangement with the British Government, by the proposals for compensation, lie intends to take any further action in the matter

Mr. THOMAS: I understand that, in that part of his speech to which these questions relate, the Premier of Victoria was referring solely to the question of a flat rate of compensation to all settlers as against a rate varying according to, the amount of capital originally possessed by each individual settler. As the House has already been informed, I have reached the conclusion, after the most careful consideration, that the arrangements proposed constitute, in all the circumstances, a reasonable adjustment of a very difficult matter.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the severe condemnation passed by the Royal Commission on the treatment of the British ex-service migrants by the Victorian Government, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with the migrants who are unanimous in thinking that the terms offered to them are miserably inadequate?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand that this question is to be raised later this evening, and I would not like to anticipate my reply.

HOLIDAY CRUISES (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Sir B. FALLE: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken by his Department to see that those liners which cater for the holiday-cruise traffic provide medical staff of qualified surgeons and physicians, dispensers, and certified nurses proportionate to the number of passengers and crew of the ship?

Sir PARK GOFF: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a physician as well as a surgeon is provided
by the ship for the service of passengers and crew of cruising liners; and how many surgeons, physicians, dispensers, and certified nurses are provided, either optionally or by regulation, for the protection of a complement of 750 persons consisting of 500 passengers and 250 crew carried by a liner on a holiday cruise?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Vessels employed on foreign-going holiday cruises, and having 100 persons or more on board, are required by law to carry a duly qualified medical practitioner. Such practitioners are qualified both in medicine and surgery. The law does not require dispensers and certified nurses to be carried in any ship, but I am informed that a nurse is usually carried in a cruising vessel and that in a number of cases a hospital attendant is also carried and sometimes a second doctor.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION (STATISTICS).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of emigration and immigration from and into this country during the years 1931 and 1932, specifying separately the number of those of British nationality?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer in eludes a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of persons who left permanent residence in the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence in non-European countries was 35,697 (34,310 British and 1,387 aliens) in 1931, and 28,048 (26,988 British and 1,060 aliens) in 1932, while the number of persons who left permanent residence in non-European countries and arrived to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom was 73,056 (71,382 British and 1,674 aliens) in 1931, and 77,273 (75,595 British and 1,678 aliens) in 1932.

Note. Residence for a year or more is treated as permanent residence.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the appointment of a suitably constituted trade development advisory
council to investigate and recommend what industrial development and reconstruction can be immediately undertaken within the British Empire with the object of effectively putting the idle funds to work which are now lying in the banks and thereby increasing purchasing power and the price level?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): There is no obstacle to new capital issues for expenditure within the Empire, whether these issues are made on behalf of borrowers in the United Kingdom or borrowers in any part of the Empire. As my hon. Friend is aware, statutory provision already exists for encouraging development within the Colonial Empire in particular, through the Colonial Development Fund, subject to the recommendations of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the establishment of an additional advisory body.

DOMINION STATUS.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that no steps will be taken to grant Dominion status to any part of the Empire which does not at present enjoy the same without the concurrence of the self-governing Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend asked me a similar question two years ago, and I gave him the best answer I could, bearing in mind the ordinary limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question and the fact that his question raises a matter of constitutional practice, namely, that if and when any other British Possession comes under the Statute of Westminster, it will be by precisely the same machinery and precisely the same method as I he Dominions which have already come under it.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Are we to understand that a part of the Empire might be given Dominion status without the other Dominions being asked or consulted?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, within the limits of the answer that I have given, I think that is rather unlikely, but in any event when the actual case arises it will be time to give a specific answer as to how it is to be treated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENLIGHTENMENT AND PROPAGANDA (MINISTER).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulties of the times, he will consider the appointment of a Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that my hon. and gallant. Friend's proposal is practicable.

Sir W. BRASS: How does my right hon. Friend propose to implement the suggestion made at the luncheon at the Trocadero recently?

The PRIME MINISTER: By continuing the practice in this country that party propaganda is to be carried on by private enterprise.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will my right hon. Friend consider abolishing some of the present Ministers instead of wasting money on new Ministers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that, if my hon. and gallant Friend were one of them, he would look at it from another point of view.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country is being enlightened without the appointment of any Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER PROGRAMME).

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: (by Private Notice)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any alteration of the 1933 programme is contemplated.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Yes, Sir. The House will remember that this programme included one "Leander" class cruiser of 7,250 tons and three "Arethusas" of 5,400 tons each, armed with eight and six 6- inch guns respectively. The policy of building cruisers of comparatively small tonnage had been adopted in the hope that other nations would follow our lead. Also, it will be recalled that in July, 1932, the United Kingdom Delegation at Geneva put forward proposals for the reduction of future cruisers to 7,000 tons with a maximum gun calibre of 6.1 inch in the hope that these would be generally accepted. Unfortunately, neither of these hopes has been realised.
In 1931 Japan laid down two cruisers of 8,500 tons reported to mount 15 6-inch
guns. It is learnt that she is now laying down two more of the same dimensions, and that the construction of yet another two, making six in all, is projected. The United States also have already announced the intention of building four cruisers of 10,000 tons, each with 15 6-inch guns. If, therefore, our programme already approved were to be carried out the new cruisers would be definitely inferior to those being developed by other Powers.
As the House is aware, however, our total cruiser tonnage is limited by the London Naval Treaty. The result is that we have been on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If we proceeded with our original programme, all the cruisers that we should be building would be definitely inferior to certain of the cruisers which are being built by other Powers. If, on the other hand, we are to build any cruisers comparable with those vessels, we must reduce our number from four to three.
The first alternative could not be accepted, and accordingly, after the most anxious consideration, and with much regret, we propose to revise the 1933 programme so as to include two cruisers of a new type of about 9,000 tons with increased armament, and one cruiser of the "Arethusa." type (about 5,200 tons). This alteration will not involve any increase in the cost of the 1933 programme. Indeed, some small reduction in the cost of this programme is expected to result.
I should explain that the United States and Japan, under the terms of the London Naval Treaty, are fully entitled to build ships of the size they contemplate. Nevertheless, it will be the continued policy of the Government to endeavour by common agreement both to restrict the number of vessels of the larger size as much as possible, and also to reduce the maximum size of cruisers to be constructed in the future.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is most inadvisable for this country to agree to any Treaty in the nature of the London Treaty which prohibits us from building what we require for our defence—what we consider is best?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is outside the question.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope I may ask for the indulgence of the House while I make a personal statement. In the course of yesterday's Debate I made a reference to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and perhaps I may read the exact words from column 582 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I was saying:
Not only was she encouraged by the Government in the way I have indicated, but speeches were made by leading Members of the Tory party in this House last year deliberately encouraging Japan in the course upon which she had embarked.
Then there were questions, and in that connection and under pressure I regret that I referred to the right hon. Member for Birmingham. The OFFICIAL REPORT proceeds:

"Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To my astonishment the bon. Gentleman has named me in that connection. Will he read any passage from my speeches which justifies his allegation.

Mr. JONES: I will reply to that in this way. Certainly I ought to have fortified myself with actual quotations. I will not deny that, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that he devoted a very considerable proportion of that speech to justifying Japan in large measure, on the ground of the difficulties created for Japan by the disturbances in China.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If to be enabled to see two sides of a question is to be a partisan on one side, then there is perhaps some foundation for the hon. Gentleman's charge. I endeavoured to show, before condemning the action of Japan, that, at least I understood what had led to it, and my condemnation was outspoken. [HON MEMBERS: 'Withdraw!'] If, after that, the hon. Gentleman persists, I say flatly that there is not the slightest foundation for his argument.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. JONES: Am I to be allowed to proceed, Mr. Speaker? I am not going to withdraw a single word. I repeat that the inference of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in the main was in the direction which I have indicated. If that was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot help it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not so.

Mr. JONES: Very well, we disagree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1933; cols. 582–3; Vol.281.]
I have now had the opportunity of refreshing my memory by reference to the account given in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate, and it is clear to me that I did the right hon. Gentleman a grievous injustice. It is obvious that my allega-
tion that he deliberately encouraged Japan in her action cannot be sustained. I have no desire in these circumstances to persist in it. I beg the House, therefore, to give me leave to withdraw the statement. I am the more aggrieved that I made the statement because it was applied to an honoured Member of this House whose unfailing courtesy has won the unstinted admiration of the House. In expressing my regret to the House for my action, I hope it will acquit me of any malicious intent. In offering the right hon. Gentleman himself my apology, I hope that he might find it possible, if not to forget, at least to forgive.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the House allow me to thank the hon. Gentleman for the very handsome way in which he has treated this incident and to say that I hope it will not weaken but confirm the friendly relations that should exist between Members sitting on opposite sides of the House in all matters that concern the House. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the statement that he has made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to proceed with the Orders on the Paper tonight?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am moving the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to get down to and including the Amendments to Standing Orders.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are four pages of Amendments to Standing Orders and that they appeared on the Paper only to-day? While no one wishes to obstruct necessary business, it is fair to the House that we should have a little time so that Members who may want to raise questions will have the opportunity of being able to put their case after consideration of the Amendments. I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to allow this Order to stand over until to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is true that in bulk these Amendments look formidable, but I can assure the right hon. and gallant Member that if he will study them
he will find that they are mainly purely drafting Amendments. If in the course of the day any application is made, we shall be glad to consider it, but I should like the House at any rate to start on this Order. I am sure that hon. Members will find we shall finish in time.

Colonel GRETTON: May I represent to the right hon. Gentleman that it is hard to go through so many pages of Amendments and to compare them with the Standing Orders. We have no desire to obstruct, but I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider the last page or two of the Amendments.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to allow the business to be started. I would remind him that these Amendments are the result of an agreed report of a Committee representing all parties of the House——

Mr. MAXTON: Not all.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will make one small exception. I feel sure that if the House will turn its attention to these Amendments to-night it will find that, although they are long, they are no more than drafting.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Why were they put down only to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reason is that no opposition has been displayed to them. As a matter of fact I learn that they have been down four or five days.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ROMFORD REDISTRIBUTION).

3.57 p.m.

Mr. HUTCHISON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in respect of the redistribution of seats at Parliamentary elections; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is a one Clause Bill and its purpose is to appoint three Members instead of one for the present constituency of Romford. The suggested new constituencies would be (1) Romford, which
would include the urban and rural districts of Romford and the urban district of Hornchurch; (2) Barking, which is now a municipal borough; and (3) the urban district of Dagenham. This, I believe, is necessary owing to the rapid growth of the district. Within the last 10 years this division has increased from roughly 40,000 to 150,000 electors. At the present rate of increase of between 11,000 and 12,000 a year there will be within five years 200,000 elector for the Romford division. Added to that, plans have been confirmed and the builders are now getting busy for a new estate of houses beside the ordinary development by which there will be 32,000 new inhabitants. That means that in ale next five years there will be well over 232,000 electors. It is obvious that it is more than one Member can do to represent so many people. It is manifestly impossible for anybody to do it. One cannot get round the division in any normal time, and at election time it will be quite impossible to get round the various parts of the constituency to make oneself known. As I said once when asking a question on this subject, it is too great an honour for one person to represent so many people.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hutchison, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Raikes, Miss Graves, Mr. Hamilton Kerr. Mr. Hanley, Mr. James MacAndrew, and Mr. Herbert Williams.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ROMFORD REDISTRIBUTION) BILL,

"to amend the law in respect of the redistribution of seats at Parliamentary elections; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Division into administrative areas) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2—(Establishment of county councils.)

4.1 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out the words "county aldermen and."
May I be allowed to make a suggestion? Seeing that this Amendment raises the same point as subsequent Amendments on Clause 17, might we take the discussion on the others at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure how far the arguments in regard to the question raised in this Amendment will be the same as are applicable to the later Amendment. If the arguments in regard to the later Amendment are not substantially the same as on the first, I do not think I could allow the Amendments to be discussed together, but if the arguments are substantially the same on both Amendments I have no objection to the hon. Member referring to the fact that he has the two Amendments down, and applying his arguments to both.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Subject to your approval, Sir Dennis, as it is very probable that the substance of the arguments will be the same, I can see no objection to the hon. Member dealing with the two Amendments together.

Mr. TINKER: In the first place, I regret very much having to bring this matter before the Committee, because I realise from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last week that this is a consolidation Measure which has taken a long time to bring into its present form. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it repeals 47 Acts and 33 Schedules, and it contains 306 Clauses and 11 Schedules. While we realise the difficulties, at the same time one cannot allow certain parts of the Bill to pass without calling atten-
tion to matters which are directly opposite to the views one holds. The question of the appointment of aldermen seems to me to be altogether outside the scope of what we want to do. I have been trying to find out why this provision was brought forward, but I have been unable to do so. Whatever may have been the reason for aldermen when they were first appointed, for the life of me I cannot see any need for them at the present time. I must leave it to other hon. Members to argue the case for them. I am going to put the negative side to show why they are not required.
I would point out that in the constitution of the councils, both in the counties and in the boroughs, one-third are aldermen appointed by the members of the elected councils. The aldermen do not go before the public, but when the councils are appointed they decide who the aldermen shall be, half of them retiring and half being elected for six years. The position therefore created is that local government work can be carried on by a number of people who have not been before the electorate. It is because of that that I am anxious at the outset to put that matter in its proper place. I can quote instances to prove my point that the balance of power may be entirely opposite to the wish of the electors. I have a recent instance in mind. I represent the Leigh Division of Lancashire. We have a borough and two district councils. At the last election for the borough, what we call Labour or Socialist representation was raised to 11 out of the 24 members. The opposition parties had 13. There has been an election of aldermen. They have re-elected three out of four, leaving the balance in the council 19, as against 13; so that in the next election, if we get a balance of the accredited votes of the people for the councillors, yet we shall be in a minority in the work of the council. It will leave us then with 13 councillors and two aldermen—15 out of the 32, leaving the balance of power in the opposition camp. That is a travesty of local government.
We look upon local government, probably, with a keener interest than do Members of the Government. We know that Members of the Government say that there ought to be no political views in local government, yet all the time underneath that argument they are trying to get their point of view advanced by re-
turning their people to the councils. We, on these benches, make no bones about it at all. We declare emphatically that it is our intention to get power on the local councils as well as in Parliament, and therefore we try to persuade the electors that our representation is best, and we do it openly and fairly. It may be argued that we want stability and men of experience to tell the new council exactly what has happened, so as to guide them in the proper channels, but we find that when it suits either what is called the Socialist party or what is called the Conservative party they can at any time put up all the aldermen and put up fresh ones in their place if desired, so that the question of long service, guidance or stability are just at the whim of the council. I claim that that is no defence for aldermen.
If it is argued that a larger council is necessary, we can have additional councillors, and an election every four years, and so get continuity of work and experience over a longer period. In place of the aldermen, we could have additional councillors, so that everyone would have to go before the electors every four years. We have district councils, a smaller edition of the borough and county councils, with exactly the same kind of work to accomplish, though on a smaller scale; yet Parliament at a later period determined that there was no requirement for non-elected people to serve on those bodies. In the case of a district council everyone has to go before the electorate every three years. If district councillors can do their work efficiently, I say there is no reason why the county councils and the borough councils need be treated differently in the matter of aldermen.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: They have a very much smaller jurisdiction.

Mr. TINKER: I quite agree that it is much smaller, but it is on similar lines to the others. It has always been held that the greater should govern the lesser, and, therefore, if necessary for the bigger body, one would have thought it would be necessary for the smaller body. If I remember rightly, the organisation of district councils came about in 1896 at a later period than the borough councils or the county councils, and Parliament must have realised at that time that
there was no need for aldermen. And so we have in this consolidating Measure an ancient thing continued. Whatever good it might have done in those days, it certainly is not necessary now. I can see not the slightest use for it. If we cannot deal with it in this Consolidation Bill, then I invite an expression of opinion from the Committee as to why this should be kept in.
It will no doubt be urged that controversy may smash this Bill, but if we do not make a protest at a time like this about any point in regard to which we disagree, we shall be lacking, in our duty. Only last week on a Bill which came before the House with regard to women, an hon. Member put the point that unless they did something now, when the Bill became consolidated there would be less chance of getting the reform that was required. I make the same plea to-day, that if we do not make a protest against what is incorporated in this Bill, it will be rightly urged that no protest was made on the consolidating Measure.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Before saying anything else, I want to repudiate, with some heat, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that Members on that side are any more interested in, or keen on, local government than Members on this side. I venture definitely to say that on this side, both here and outside the House, we can claim a record comparable with—I do not say superior to, because we know what Members opposite have done—but in every way comparable with Members opposite in regard to loyal government, and in saying anything to the contrary he is acting ungenerously.

Mr. TINKER: That was not the point I had in mind. I had in mind the remark which the hon. Member made in his speech the other night when he said:
Most Members of the House will agree that anything that would tend to increase the influence of party politics on local elections is also bad."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1933; col. 273,Vol.281.]
I felt that most Members would regard that as referring to us on these benches, as persons who take a politicial view of local government, and it was that to which I was referring.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I thank the hon. Member very much for the explanation
which, of course, puts an entirely different complexion on his words. I think he will admit, on reflection, that they were open to misconstruction. Coming to this Amendment, I say with all respect that I think he has been a little ungenerous in putting forward this question at this stage. We all know that this is a long and complicated Bill which, if it is to be passed, must be passed through all its stages this week; and if all of us were to urge not only points of vital principle, such as this, but even matters of detail in which we think the Bill errs, there would be no chance of passing it into law this Session. When I first saw this Bill I drafted 30 sets of what I believe were not very controversial Amendments, but when I looked at the Bill and at the time available for its consideration I scrapped 27 of them, because I realised that it was better to get the Bill at almost any price than to waste time on too many Amendments. The hon. Member feels strongly on this point, but my friends and I have other points on which we feel equally strongly, including the abolition of 60 percent. of the councils of this country and the curtailing of the powers of the remainder. We think it is just as important and reasonable to consider them as the hon. Member considers it important to discuss the abolition of aldermen, and I hope very much that this Amendment will not be pressed.
It seemed to me that most of the argument in the hon. Member's speech was directed not so much to the abolition of aldermen as to the institution of a system of Proportional Representation for them. He gave the case of his own local council, and said that under the present system of election of aldermen it might be possible to have a council with a majority contrary to the will of the electors. I do not regard that as seriously as he, does. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not. But accepting his argument, the remedy for that is not the abolition of aldermen, it is Proportional Representation for aldermen. That has often been urged, and although I do not agree with it there is, of course, something to be said for it; but that is quite distinct from removing from a council people who are, very often, of extreme value, and yet for various reasons cannot—or it is undesirable that they should
—seek election at the hands of the electors.
First of all the hon. Member's argument was that aldermen might not represent the will of the people because they might go against the majority of the council. His next argument was that the election of the aldermen was unreliable, because they were chosen entirely at the will of the elected council. I suggest that he cannot have it both ways. Either the aldermen are bad because they do not represent the council, or they are bad because they do—but not for both reasons. Leaving aside my own very low opinion of district councils, I do not think it is fair to compare parish and district councils with borough and county councils. Their functions are entirely different and the work they have to do is entirely different. It is my own personal experience, and I think many hon. Members opposite know it, even though they may not like to say it, that we do get on the aldermanic bench, particularly in those councils, of which happily there are still many, which are not cursed with party politics, men of long service and high ideals, non-party men, men who give up the bulk of their lives to the service of the public, and men of a type that we cannot get in any other way.
Leaving out my own personal view that the aldermanic bench saves our Local Government system from the twin evils of democracy and equality—from the completeness of those twin evils—I think almost anybody who has served on local councils will admit that the aldermanic bench has amply justified itself in the past, and will in the future, by the number of self-sacrificing men and men of immense experience who give their service to the public as aldermen but have neither the time, nor the opportunity in many cases, to seek election as councillors. This particularly occurs in the case of county councils, where very often a local seat is held by someone whom it would be a loss to the council to lose, and by electing that man to serve as alderman it is possible to have two good men from the same area serving on the council. That would be impossible if aldermen were abolished. Leaving out all questions of root principle, I suggest that the aldermanic bench has justified itself in Local Gov-
ernment as a thoroughly useful and excellent institution.

4,23 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Committee will remember the old Greek fable of the two Greek physicians who argued at the bedside of a patient. They exchanged brilliant arguments and finally came to blows. The conflict was decided in favour of the more learned physician, but by that time the patient was dead. Nobody knows better than the two hon. Members who have spoken that, if we are really to enter upon such scenes of fascinating controversy as those which have been opened up by the Debate so far, then, in common phrase, there will not be "a dog's chance" for the Bill. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) stated in a manner which could not be improved upon what we should do upon this Amendment; that is, let us recog

nise that a most interesting point has been raised, and that it has been argued with great force both by the hon. Member for Leigh and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont). The Committee will not doubt upon which side my sympathies lie, but I refrain from entering into the controversy. I would advise hon. Members that we should regard this as an interesting issue which should come up for decision in any general Measure for the amendment of local government, but recognise that we have before us to-day the task of consolidating existing legislation, and, in order to do that, exercise the self-restraint which the exigencies of Parliamentary time demand.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 34.

Division No. 302.]
AYES.
14.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Crossley, A. C.
Harbord, Arthur


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hartland, George A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Denville, Alfred
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dickie, John P.
Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.


Beaumont, Hn. R. E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Donner, P. W.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey- Division)


Benn, sir Arthur Shirley
Doran, Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bernays, Robert
Duckworth, George A. V.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Blindell, James
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Borodale, Viscount
Duggan, Hubert John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hornby, Frank


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Horobin, Ian M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Horsbrugh, Florence


Briant, Frank
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iveagh, Countess of


Browne, Captain A. C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Buchan, John
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Jamleson, Douglas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Janner, Barnett


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gibson, Charles Granville
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Carver, Major William H.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goff, Sir Park
Ker, J. Campbell


Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Goldie, Noel B.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Knight, Holford


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Christie, James Archibald
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Clarke, Frank
Grimston, R. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Clarry, Reginald George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Leckle, J. A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Lees-Jones, John


Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Levy, Thomas


Copeland, Ida
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Lewis, Oswald


Craven-Ellis, William
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Klim'rnock)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peake, Captain Osbert
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd,Gr'n)
Pearson, William G.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Peat, Charles U.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spens, William Patrick


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Mabane, William
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stevenson, James


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Pike, Cecil F.
Stones, James


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Potter, John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F,


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


McKeag, William
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


McKle, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Summersby, Charles H.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rea, Walter Russell
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thompson, Luke


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, John Roland
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Train, John


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Milne, Charles
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Watt, captain George Steven H.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wayland, Sir William A.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Weymouth, Viscount


Morgan, Robert H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
White, Henry Graham


Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Moss, Captain H. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Munro, Patrick
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wise, Alfred R.


Nall, Sir Joseph
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Womersley, Walter James


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Wragg, Herbert


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaka)


North, Edward T.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Soper, Richard



Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Sotheron-Estcourt,. Captain T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Palmer, Francis Noel
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
sir George Penny and Sir Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies,' David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James



Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Committee will kindly note that as there are a very large number of Clauses in this Bill, I propose to put them in blocks where there are no Amendments to them upon the Order Paper.

Clauses 3 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 23.—(Term of office of councillors, day of election, &c.)

4.36 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out the words "of
November," and to insert instead thereof the words "in June."
This Amendment is moved for the purpose of changing the date of the election. No one can say that the month of November is a good month for any kind of outdoor work, because we do not get the return that we should like to have. The local government vote totals about 60 per cent, of the electors, and that can hardly be said to be a fair return. Much of the non-turning-up at meetings is because of the bad weather conditions. Any hon. Member who has taken part in local government elections will agree with that. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) said that his party
took as much interest in local government elections as we do. I assume that he meant that they took part in propaganda work and in trying to induce electors to see their point of view. If that is so, he has done what we have done, and he will agree that some change in the date is necessary.
Assuming that his position is like my own, I would like to tell the Committee of my personal experiences in my constituency. This year we made a very big effort to get people to see our point of view, and we held a large number of open air meetings towards the end of October, getting on for November. It was somewhat difficult to get anything like an audience at some of the meetings, hut we faced the issue. We are not like some Members of Parliament who, when they go to a meeting, have a ready-made audience for them to speak to. Our propaganda is not done in that way. We believe that, if we are to succeed, audiences must not be artificially made for us. There must be a genuine belief. If we can only get few people to listen to us, and we know that the message has gone home, they will be converts to us when the time comes for them to vote. We go around in the bad weather trying to persuade people to accept our point of view. We are asking the Committee to agree to this Amendment, because we think that November is not the right time of year to do that work.
Let me give another point. We wish electors to turn up at the poll, but, if the weather is foggy, like it was on Saturday or Sunday of last week-end, we find it very difficult to get people to turn up. It is taxing them too much. Unless the party is well provided with vehicles, it can only get 40 per cent of the voters, which is very small indeed. We are not in the position, as Labour members or as Labour councillors, to provide many vehicles, and therefore we are handicapped, as compared with the other side, who have vehicles with which to bring voters to the poll. If there was better weather, by the elections being held at a better time of the year, there would be hardly any need for vehicles, and people would go to the poll. To change from November to June would be an alteration to what is about the best time of the
year. When I spoke to one person about June, he said: "There will be a number of people on their holidays." I said to him, "Not very many of our people. Those who are on holidays will support the other side, and that would be to our advantage. They will not be able to give their votes; let us stick to June, because we shall be securing an advantage over the other side."
I will leave that point on one side, and I will assume that every one of the electors wants to vote. It is advisable to use a time of the year when they will be able to record their vote in local government elections, and we ought to be able to get from 80 to 90 per cent in those conditions. I appeal to the hon. Member for Aylesbury to support the Amendment. I do not say that we should not be prepared to accept another month, but we want to get away from November. Hon. Members may suggest July or August—I do not want to accept anything later than that—or some date about the middle of the year. My desire is to get as many people as possible interested in local government work, and I would rather have 80 per cent. of the electors recording their vote than the percentage that we have at the present time.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I desire to support this Amendment. I suggest that it would not be detrimental to the Bill to alter the date from November to June or May. I corroborate what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and add that the earlier date would be safer for people who were voting. In London we vote in the schools, which are not all electrically lighted, certainly in my area, in the case of some of the non-provided schools, and some of the elderly people find it rather unsafe to go there after 6 p.m. Quite apart from propaganda, it is a fixed principle, in this country, where we believe in the popular vote, that we shall provide full facilities for our people to express their views; we therefore should not make it more difficult by continuing this voting in November. Whatever may be the origin of it, practical experience has proved that we should change the date, although we cannot change the surroundings. The Amendment would bring municipal voting nearer to the
period of voting for the urban district councils.
I should he glad if the Minister would explain why, since voting is in April for the urban district councils and, for the London County Council, about the end of March, it is necessary that the voting for county councils and county borough councils shall be on 1st November? I have been a member of the West Ham Council, with other hon. Members of this House, for more than 10 years, and my experience is that it is difficult for us to maintain our open-air work—which cannot he condemned merely because it is open-air work, as it has grown up because of our lack of funds. People are interested in open-air lecturing and speaking, which is a justifiable means of political propaganda. It would certainly be more useful for us to do our speaking to our people in the summer, when it is easy for those who are the bulwarks of the various political strata to come out and listen to our point of view. I submit to the Minister that all that we think and know in connection with political propaganda in this country leads us to urge him to change the voting date from the 1st November to some time in June. I repeat that it would he safer for the people in their voting, and it would eliminate much of the necessity for all parties in local elections to provide transport, and therefore would save money —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry; they are all supposed to be free, presuming that the law is fully carried out by both sides, but in the long run the change would be economical to the country and beneficial to the people.

4.46 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment, because there is an aspect of the situation which the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) may not appreciate. Perhaps be has not been down to Margate lately and enjoyed its beneficial air. There is an aspect with regard to seaside resorts, which should be considered. If these borough elections were held in June, it would seriously affect the industry of seaside resorts in trying to provide holidays for people from other parts of the country. Certainly the normal holiday period would be upset in a way that would detract most seriously from the attractions of re-
sorts which are boroughs, and which therefore have these elections. I cannot see that the arguments of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) are worthy of serious consideration unless equally serious consideration is given to the other side of the picture.
The hon. Member dealt with the difficulty of getting in touch with the electors during the winter. He wanted to bring home his point of view to them all. I would suggest that the literature which is circulated, and the articles which appear in the local Press, given silent contemplation by the winter fireside, are probably just as effective a means of getting home a particular point of view as open-air meetings. The hon. Member spoke of the difficulty of getting people to vote in inclement weather, but is not a vote given in inclement weather worth two votes given in fine weather, because of the sincerity and enthusiasm which urge the elector to go to the poll at such a time? I hope that, from the point of view of the seaside resorts, if not from other points of view which I will not elaborate, the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. JOHN JONES: I am very interested in the efforts of those who are neophytes in these matters to teach their grandmothers to suck eggs. Those who, since they were boys, hare taken an active part in propaganda and organisation work on behalf of the Labour movement, know that what the hon. and gallant Member has just said is "All my eye and Betty Martin." He knows very well that, so far as his friends have the power and opportunity, they will use that power and opportunity to make it difficult for their opponents to pull their full strength. We know that, when it comes to fighting an election in districts such as mine, we have all the machinery and organisation of the motor car and so on against us, and in my own constituency we also have Lady Houston coming along to help to fight an unfortunate person like myself.
What is the objection to making it easier for electors to record their votes? The only argument that has been adduced is that it is nice to sit round the fireside, but what about people who have no coal in the grate 7 They want to vote in order to see if they can get coal for
their grates. They want to see that the opportunities of living a decent life will be provided in the only constitutional way in which they can be provided, namely, by the will of the people. It ought to be made more easy for people to express their view, rather than being made more difficult by the old system, created in the days of Adam, of polling on I he 1st November; it should have been on the 5th. I wonder that the people who conceived this idea in the first instance did not make it the 1st April. So far as we are concerned, we have no fear of the people voting. We are not Hitlerites. We want the people to vote; we want to give them free opportunity of doing so. We in West 11-am have allowed our opponents to vote, but we have always beaten them, and after the election we have been just the same good friends with them as before. All that this Amendment asks is that people should have reasonable opportunity for giving their votes under decent conditions. At the end of October and in November there arc fogs, and it is impossible for the older people to go to the polling station and yet you say that this is democracy. When the weather conditions are against the people expressing their opinions, you want to keep this condition stereotyped. I think it is only fair to ask that a more suitable date should fixed than this date, which is one of the worst periods of the year, and I hope that the Amendment will be carried.

4.52 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) based his argunments for this change on the statement that November generally provided inclement weather. I think that, if he could guarantee a fine day in June in this connection, it would be a greater justification for his proposals. He has given certain reasons why it is undesirable to have these elections in November; may I give him two difficulties in connection with holding them in June? The first reason he has really given himself, namely, that of holidays. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) that holidays have to be considered, and it would be very inconvenient to have these elections during
the period when many people belonging to both sides are enjoying their holidays. The elections would clash with the Whitsun holidays if they were held in June, for Whit Sunday may fall on any date between the 10th May and the 13th June. That is one difficulty, but there is another, to which I think the Committee ought to give grave consideration. The register of electors comes into force on the 15th October——

Mr. GROVES: The date could be altered.

Mr. HACKING: I am only dealing with the proposal of the hon. Member for Leigh; I cannot deal with any proposal to amend the other Acts at the present time. As the new list comes into force, on the 15th October, it is up to date on the 1st November, but it would be out of date and comparatively stale by June. That certainly is a great difficulty.
In 1931 a resolution was passed by the Association of Municipal Corporations in favour of spring elections, but it was only carried, I understand, by a small majority. There was great opposition to it; there is no doubt about that; and the Secretary of State told the Association of Municipal Corporations at that time that this proposed alteration must receive a greater measure of support before he could recommend any change of this kind to Parliament. The Chelmsford Committee considered this question, and they took exactly the same view as my right hon. Friend. I would only point out that the main objects of this Bill are really to consolidate the existing law; that has already been stated. I think it would be very wrong to include in the Bill any change which would be hotly contested, and there is no doubt, whatever hon. Members may say, that this proposed alteration would be hotly contested. On these grounds alone I think it is undesirable that the proposal should be carried.

Mr. GROVES: Is it not true that the register is out of date for county council elections, or is the register for county council elections made up to a different date from that for county boroughs?

Mr. HACKING: I am only dealing with the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Leigh, nothing more.

Question put, "That the words of November' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266;Noes, 37.

Division No. 303.]
AYES.
[4.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col Sir M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Goldie, Noel B.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, colonel Rt. Hon. John
Milne, Charles


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W).
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bateman, A. L.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morgan, Robert H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Bilndell, James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Borodale, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd).
Newton, Sir Douglas George C


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, Cecil
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Briant, Frank
Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gtn)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peat, Charles U.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R D.


Buchan, John
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chetmsf'd)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burghley, Lord
Heneaga, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pike, Cecil F


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Potter, John


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pybus, Percy John


Carver, Major William H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isies)


Cazaiet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Christie, James Archibald
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Conant, R. J. E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Cooper, A. Duff
Iveagh, Countess of
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Copeland, Ida
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jamieson, Douglas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Janner, Barnett
Runge, Norah Cecil


Croom-Johnson, R P.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crossley, A. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davison, Sir William Henrv
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Knight, Holford
Sanderson, Sir A. N. Stewart


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Danville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dickle, John P.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Donner, P. W.
Leckie, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Doran, Edward
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duckworth, George A. V
Lees-Jones, John
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kllm'rnock)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Elmley, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Soper, Richard


Emmott, Charles E, G. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Southby, Commander Archibald R. L


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mabane, William
Spencer, Capton Richard A.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Spens, William Patrick


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Fermoy, Lord
McKeag, William
Stevenson, James


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
McKie, John Hamilton
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stones, James


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Magnay, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gibson, Charles Granville
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Summersby, Charles H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sutcliffe, Harold
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wise, Alfred R.


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Womersley, Walter James


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wragg, Herbert


Thompson, Luke
Wells, Sydney Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
White, Henry Graham



Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Major George Davies and Dr.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L.(Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llnelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Division of borough into wards or alteration of number of counsellors, wards or boundaries.)

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, after the word "whole," to insert the words "number of members of the."
This is a purely drafting Amendment to assimilate the Clause to other places in the Bill where a majority is mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I beg to move, in page 14, line 39, after the word "land," to insert the words "and hereditaments."
The object of this Amendment is that the rateable value of the premises shall be taken into consideration. I do not know why, but it appears in the Bill that these matters are relating to land only whereas it is rateable value in wards and boroughs which is the governing factor. The Bill says the rateable value of the land shall be taken into account. As I understand it, the rateable value of the land is separately available for the purpose. Obviously premises are intended and it would
appear desirable for clarity to make the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend an assurance which will remove the necessity for his Amendment. I am informed by my legal adviser that the word "land" is sufficiently wide technically to include both hereditaments and also the word "premises" referred to in subsequent Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) under the Definition Clause and also in the Interpretation Act of 1889.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 26 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Chairman of district council.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 25, leave out the words "the county or for either county," and insert instead thereof the words "a country."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 34 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 46.—(Provisions as to orders.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 40, after the word "transfer," insert the
words "and compensation of officers."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 50.—(Number and term of office of parish councillors.)

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 28, line 21, to leave out the word "thirty-four" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-seven."
This arises as the result of the postponement of the date of the Bill from January to June, 1934. The 1934 elections will take place under the existing law, and the substitution of 1937 for 1934 regularises the position.

Sir J. NALL: Why is the date being altered if this is merely consolidating the law?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The law is not being altered at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 55.—(Omission to hold election, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 31, line 11, leave out the word "it" and insert instead thereof the word "them."

In page 31, line 14, leave out the second word "it" and insert instead thereof the word "them."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 56 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 59.—(Disqualifications for office as member of local authority.)

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 32, line 18, at the ends to insert the words:
(a) is directly or indirectly by himself or his partner concerned in any contract, bargain, or employment entered into with the local authority, or participates in the profit of any such contract, bargain, or employment, or any work done under the authority of the local authority.
When a very intricate and complicated constitutional problem arises on these Bills, it generally falls to the uninitiated to, handle it, and I am sure the House will pardon me for doing so on this occasion. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 59 they will see at once what the Amendment aims at doing. The Clause relates to the disqualifications for office as members of a local authority. The Clause reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a member of a local authority if he"—
And then there is a series of disqualifications against persons sitting on local authorities. The Amendment which I propose puts in the first rank of disqualifications,
any person who is, directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, concerned in any contract, bargain or employment entered into with the local authority, or participates in the profits of any such contract, bargain or employment or of any work done under the authority of the local authority.
I understand that that is the original disqualification. It appears to us that this consolidating Bill in respect of disqualifications for members of a local authority gets away from the status quo. Speaking on behalf of the party on this side of the House, we are very much disturbed that there is to be a change in that direction, which, in our opinion, will relax the position in relation to disqualification. If our Amendment is carried, as it may well be when I have finished, not because of my speech but because of the strong arguments which can be put forward in favour of it. Hon. Members will have to listen later to the consequential Amendments which I shall propose to insert and which I have already handed in at the Table in manuscript in a later part of Clause 59. This Amendment will become the first disqualification and will take the place of the first disqualification printed in the Bill. If hon. Members will turn for the purposes of reference to Clause 76 they will find that the disqualification now proposed here is a new disqualification. The disqualification in future will be on two counts. When a member of a local authority who is interested in a contract with his local authority sits on the council he will have to disclose to the council the fact that he is interested in that contract. Beyond
that, however he has to do something else. He must not vote at all upon the issue in which he is personally interested.
These are two very definite disqualifications, but if my disqualification is inserted we merely return to the status quo. If hon. Members have noticed the reports of the Committee which studied the problem of the consolidation of Local Government and Public Health Acts, they will have seen that the Committee deals rather extensively with this problem. They point out that the status quo of disqualifying certain members from sitting on local authorities has not worked very well in the past. I have sat on a local authority for 10 years and consequently know just a little about those disqualifications. Whatever disadvantages there may be in the administration of the present law in disqualifying persons from sitting on local authorities, we on this side of the House are unwilling to do anything that would open the door to corruption in the public life of the country. I am sure that this will appeal to hon. Members of all parties in the House. This is not a party question, because there are good and bad in all parties, except in our own, of course, and everybody thinks the same of his own party.
Every Member of every party in this House wants to keep the public life of this country clean—clear from graft or corruption of any kind. We can pride ourselves on the fact that public life in this country is clean. The only doubtful part about it at the moment is the type of government we have, but I will leave that for the moment. We are fearful—I do not know whether the Minister will be able to clear our minds on the point—lest we make a mistake by changing the law in the way described in Clause 76, and, getting away from the status quo, that we might open the door to some corruption in local government in this country. That is all the argument I want to put forward. I feel sure that there is a case to be made out for retaining what we already possess. It may not have worked very well in some respects, but, I repeat, we are afraid that the new method proposed in the Bill may be worse than the old one, and consequently I move the Amendment.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: As a result of my experience in local government work, I consider that the Committee would be very wise indeed to accept the Amendment. In all my 12 or 14 years' experience of local government I have always found that local councillors have been most jealous of their honour and have a keen desire to keep local public life clean. I am satisfied that the existence of this Clause has tad a remarkably good effect in that direction. To my knowledge it has kept off local councils young men who obviously, in the opinion of their neighbours might have been inclined to use their position to benefit their own business. I am very much afraid that the suggested alterations, the fact that a man could come on to a local council and could declare that he had an interest in a particular contract and could abstain from voting, are not in themselves sufficient. Take, for instance, the rather difficult position into which some councillors might be put. You might have a man as chairman of the Works and Highways Committee in business as a builder or contractor. When a contract for this particular kind of work came before the Committee of which he was Chairman, whether he abstained from voting or not, or declared his interest or not, the fact that he was on the council and was Chairman of the Committee would undoubtedly have considerable weight. Above everything else, I am very much afraid that in those circumstances there might be an opinion outside the local authority that men sought office on the local authority simply for the purpose of benefiting their own particular interests. That would be a most unfortunate thing. Any lack of confidence in the clean administration of local government would be a very bad thing indeed.
This Bill is a consolidating Bill. We have been told that it simply leaves the law as it stands, but in this particular case a direct alteration is made. I understand that the argument is that the old law along the lines of the Amendment which we now suggest has not, in some instances, worked very well, but I am inclined to think that in a matter of this kind that, whatever form of words is used or whatever precautions you may insert, there must of necessity be times
when the thing will not fit foursquare with every particular case. Taking the matter over the whole of the country covering the procedings of so many councils, I think that the old law on this point which said that if a man wanted a council contract he should not be on the council at all, and should stand outside the administration of the local authority has worked well and has had a good effect in giving the electors confidence in their local administrators. There are people who are always inclined to be suspicious of local administrators—and suspicions of Members of Parliament for that matter—and, if on the whole this thing has worked well, we should not be doing very wrong if we put it into the present Bill. I am satisfied that Members in all quarters of the House agree that the country is proud of its clean local administration. I believe, in spite of any argument which I have yet heard to the contrary, that the Clause drafted in this particular way, and which up to now is the one which has governed procedure in these matters, has on the whole worked for the benefit of councils and the community, and I beg of the Minister to consider whether it would not be wise after all to accept the Amendment.

5.29 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member who spoke last challenged this Clause as a consolidation Clause. No, I disagree. He will remember that I warned the House on the Second Reading that certain provisions of the Bill were not ordinary consolidation. When you are consolidating a Bill and you have to put in two different codes which are incompatible with each other, you have to make an alteration, or it will make nonsense. An alteration is necessary here. In the first place, in order not to make nonsense, because we have two codes which to some extent are divergent, one dealing with county and

borough councils, and the other with district and parish councils, it is inevitable that we should make some alteration if we are not to produce a Bill which would be inconsistent.

Hon. Members opposite fear that this Bill will lead to some relaxation in the high level of local government. I have no such fear. They base their fear on the ground that the present law acts well. Far from it. It is extremely unsatisfactory, and I would call attention to the remarks made by the Bench in the ease of Lapish v. Braithwaite when most scathing things were said about the working of the existing law. The system now proposed to be introduced will tend to put a better face on things. It is admittedly a difficult matter to find a system which will work, a system which will shut the door far enough—but not shut it too tight—so as to keep out of public life those whom it is undesirable to admit. The difficulty is to let the right people in and to keep the wrong people out. We have not found the right system in the existing law, and this is recommended, after long and most careful consideration, as a more practical method of doing what we all desire. The matter has been exhaustively considered by the Onslow Commission, by the Chelmsford Committee, and also by the Joint Select Committee, and they all came to the same conclusion and recommended the system adopted in this Clause, and in Clause 76, which is exactly similar to the Clause we are now discussing. Hon. Members will find the reasons for this practical solution of the difficulty submitted in great detail by the Committee, and I believe they are convincing and enable me with full confidence to recommend this scheme to the Committee as the most practical which can be found for dealing with a difficult matter.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 292.

Division No. 304.]
AYES.
[5.34 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William


Banfield, John William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Batey, Joseph
Dobble, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David


Cap[...], Thomas
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Cove, William G.
Griffiths, T (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Leonard, William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


McGovern, John
Tinker, John Joseph



Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Price, Gabriel
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Oswald


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lindsav, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fermoy, Lord
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Loder, Captain J de vere


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mabane, William


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
MacAndrew, Capt J. O. (Ayr)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibson, Charles Granville
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Macdonald, Capt P. D. (I. of W.)


Bateman, A. L.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goff, Sir Park
McKeag, William


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Blinded, James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Boulton, W. W.
Graves, Marjorie
Magnay, Thomas


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bracken, Brendan
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Briant, Frank
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Martin, Thomas B.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills- sir frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy. J. C. Morrison
Mills Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Milne, Charles


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Buchan, John
Hanbury, Cecil
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Moss, Captain H J


Burghley, Lord
Harbord, Arthur
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Butler, Richard Austen
Harris, Sir Percy
Munro, Patrick


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nall, sir Joseph


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Carver, Major William H.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
North' Edward T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Nunn, William


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey division)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon William G. A.


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Palmer, Francis Noel


Christie, James Archibald
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peake, Captain Osbert


Clarke, Frank
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pearson, William G.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peat, Charles U.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hornby, Frank
Penny, Sir George


Conant, R. J. E.
Horobin, Ian M.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cooke, Douglas
Horsbrugh, Florence
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard, Tom Forrest
Petherick, M.


Copeland, Ida
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstapie)


Crooke, J. Smediey
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pike' Cecil F


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Potter, John


Crossley, A. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Power, Sir John cecil


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Iveagh, Countess of
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Pybus, Percy John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jamleson, Douglas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jesson,. Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Davison, Sir William Henry
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rea, Walter Russell


Dawson, Sir Philip
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Sir G. w. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Denville, Alfred
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A F.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Dickie, John p.
Ker, J. Campbell
Remer, John R


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Duggan, Hubert John
Knight, Holford
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Robinson, John Roland


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ross, Ronald D.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lew, Sir Alfred
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leckie, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)




Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stones, James
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Strauss, Edward A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Savery, Samuel Servington
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Weymouth, Viscount


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forlar)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Summersby, Charles H.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut-Colonel George


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wise, Alfred R.


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Withers, Sir John James


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thompson, Luke
Womersley, Walter James


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Soper, Richard
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wragg, Herbert


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Train, John



Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Turton, Robert Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Captain Austin Hudson and Dr.


Spens, William Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Morris-Jones.


Stevenson, James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.43 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: Before we part with the Clause I should like to draw attention to one point. This Clause deals with disqualifications for office as member of a local authority, and paragraph (c) provides that a person shall be disqualified for being elected—being a member of a local authority if he
has within 12 months before the day of election or since his election received poor relief.
That means that anyone who receives poor relief is not qualified to hold office. I do not think the Committee ought to let a Clause like that to pass without some comment, because it means penalising poverty. A man may happen to draw Poor Law relief through no fault of his own. In the economic position in which we stand to-day no one knows what may happen, and he may find himself having to get Poor Law relief, and thereby, under this Clause, he will be disqualified from holding office in any local authority. I do not think that it was ever contemplated that people should be penalised in these circumstances. A man with all the qualities of a good administrator who is driven by stress of circumstances to accept Poor Law relief is unable to accept office although he may have been elected. It puts such a man in the same category as a criminal. I do not think we should allow this provision to go through without making our protest against it. I feel keen on this matter. I do not think that we should consciously agree to placing a penalty on poverty which cannot be avoided by many people in these days.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I must support my hon. Friend in his protest. As regards the existing law, this disqualification attaches to county councils, borough councils, district councils and parish councils, but not o non-county borough councils. That is n omission; but it appears to me that he Minister is anxious to make the Bill over the lot. In the year 1933 poverty should not be penalised. A man, if he is respectable man, should be allowed to it on local councils and ought not to penalised if, through stress of circumstances, over which he has no control, he as to receive Poor Law assistance. If respectable man comes forward and the people are willing to elect him then a question of poverty ought not to disfranchise him. The man who is fraudulent should be disqualified. This is a matter which, I think, must appeal to the sports-manlike qualities of every Member of the committee. We want the right people on these local councils and if the electors vote for a man then I do not think the House of Commons ought to penalise him because of his poverty. He should not be debarred from occupying any public position.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Before we pass this Clause hope the Minister will be able to extend s meaning in regard to the words "received poor relief." They are rather too narrow to cover all that is intended. Persons in my division have told me that they have been compelled by doctor's orders to visit their children to and three times a day when they have been receiving institutional treatment, and they have not had the necessary finance
to provide the travelling expenses. They have been compelled to go to the Poor Law officer for a grant in order to meet that expenditure. If a person is to be disqualified from being a candidate for a local council because he has received relief of that nature I would not agree with it for one moment. To-day men are receiving such relief in respect of some member of the family; it is not in the nature of Poor Law relief, and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will extend the Clause to cover such cases.

5.51 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: It is quite clear that this is one of those topics upon which every Member of the Committee must have the warmest feeling, and it is a matter upon which any amending legislation would certainly receive most vigorous support in this House. But it is a perfectly familiar provision of the existing law, and the anomaly in respect of the non-county boroughs is an anomaly which a codifying Bill ought to remove. I am not going to make a speech on the merits of the case, but to ask the House, since this is a familiar provision in the existing law, to register the case made today for consideration on an appropriate occasion. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) will find that medical relief is made an exception in paragraph IV. May I ask the Committee to combine, in good will, to save this great Measure for the benefit of the country as a whole? The sands are running out, and there are undoubtedly many fascinating subjects for discussion which we shall come to in the passage of the Bill, but I hope that we may join together in a spirit of mutual co-operation to do this great task of simplifying the law, and in doing so we shall deserve the gratitude of our constituents.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. R. DAVIES: The appeal of the right hon. Gentleman would find a warm

Division No. 305.]
AYES.
[5.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bateman, A. L.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Bracken, Brendan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Briant, Frank


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Blindell, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notte., Mansfield)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bossom, A. C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boulton, W. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

response in our hearts but for the speech which he made on my Amendment when he said that we were introducing new provisions in Clause 59. Consequently, the argument that we are only codifying the law will not avail. What we cannot understand is that a person is entitled to vote in a municipal election but not entitled to be a candidate or to sit on the local authority where he has a vote. But there is a more important factor. Is there any disqualification against Members of the House of Commons? Any Member of this House may have drawn Poor Law relief. We do not know whether they have or not; but in our view it is unfair to debar a man from sitting on a local authority because of his poverty. I know the argument against us is that the Councillor may have received money from the local rates, but I should imagine hat it is better to allow him to sit on the local authority from which he has received money in Poor Law relief than to come to Parliament where re pass the laws which provide local authorities with power to pay that money. This not purely a working man's problem. I know of men who used to be in a big way of business who re complaining to-day that they are so poor that they are anxious to come within he scope of the social insurance schemes f the country. They are not entitled to health insurance benefit, to a contributory Id age pension, or to unemployment benefit; and they are as poor as some? of our working men. I object to men who have done nothing against society and who are so poor as to have to ask for Poor Law relief being debarred from sitting on Local authorities, and I shall vote against the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand art of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; "Noes, 38.

Browne, Captain A. C.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pike, Cecil F.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Potter, John


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Carver, Major William H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hornby, Frank
Pybus, Percy John


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Horobin, Ian M.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rankin, Robert


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Christie, James Archibald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rea, Walter Russell


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jamleson, Douglas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooke, Douglas
Janner, Barnett
Remer, John R,


Cooper, A. Duff
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Copeland, Ida
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Craven-Ellis, William
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, John Roland


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross, Ronald D.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knight, Molford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde),


Curry, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Daikeith, Earl of
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham),


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leckie,. J. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lees-Jones, John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Denman, Hon. R D.
Lennox-Boyd. A. T.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lewis, Oswald
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Elmley, Viscount
Mabane, William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Soper, Richard


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E,


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
McKeag, William
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer Captain Richard A.


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spens, William Patrick


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stevenson, James


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stones, James


Gibson, Charles Granville
Martin, Thomas B.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strauss, Edward A.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Milne, Charles
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Summersby, Charles H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Moreing, Adrian C.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Graves, Marjorie
Munro, Patrick
Thompson,. Luke


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newton, Sir Douglas George C,
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Train, John


Gunston, Captain D. W.
North, Edward T.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nunn, William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hanbury, Cecil
Peake, Captain Osbert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Pearson, William G.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Harbord, Arthur
Peat, Charles U.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Penny, Sir George
Wells, Sydney Richard


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Weymouth, Viscount


Haslam, Henry (Horncastie)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
White, Henry Graham


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)




Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)



Wise, Alfred R.
Wragg, Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AVES.


Withers, Sir John James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-




Jones.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert



Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (lnce)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE 61.—(Declaration of acceptance of office.)

Amendments made: In page 35, line 35, after the word "shall," insert the words: "in the case of the chairman, at the meeting at which he is elected and, in the case of a councillor."

In line 36, after the word "or," insert the words "in either ease."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 62 and 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 64.—(Declaration by local authority of vacancy in office in certain cases.)

Amendment made: In page 37, line 25, after the word "member," insert the words "of the authority."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 66.—(Filling of casual vacancy in case of chairman, mayor or alderman.)

Amendments made: In page 39, line 11, leave out the word "a."

In line 12, leave out the second word "a."

"Leave out the third word "a."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 67.—(Filling of casual vacancies in case of councillors.)

6.7 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 39, line 27, to leave out the word "thirty" and to insert instead thereof he word "fourteen."
This Amendment raises a short point, but it is one of principle. The purpose is to cut down the length of time and therefore the expense of the casual election in the case of county and borough councils. In the Schedule, page 194, the periods for county council elections and borough council elections are stated as 20 and 12 days, respectively. Under this Clause no less than 30 days are given or what might be described as an election campaign in the case of casual vacancies. Under the existing law, I understand, the period is 14 days. To extend that period to 30 days seems altogether unreasonable. It may be said hat holidays intervene, but there is a provision in Part I of the Second schedule for excluding public holidays or days appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning from the calculation of the periods, and that provision would meet the point. One has to deal here with the normal case, and my contention is that 14 days for such an election is ample time. It is everyone's desire to get the best men possible elected. Long elections mean more expense, and that must act as a deterrent. Fourteen days is quite enough from every point of view. They provide enough adulation and self-
advertisement for anyone, and if the candidate has an inferiority complex 14 days' derision and hatred will be enough for him too.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: As my hon. and learned Friend has correctly stated, this Clause deals with casual vacancies in county boroughs and in districts, but his statement of the existing law was not quite correct. The law says that after a vacancy has been declared, and before the date of the election, 14 days must elapse in the cases of county and borough councils, but one month must elapse in connection with district council elections. The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce from 30 to 14 days the period in district council elections. The Royal Commission definitely recommended four weeks as the period, and the Chelmsford Committee recommended 30 days. Both the Commission and the Committee heard much evidence on the matter. They believed that 14 days was too short a period, and that in fact it caused a number of void elections owing to the difficulty of finding candidates in such a short time. I submit that we would be well advised in accepting the recommendations of the Chelmsford Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 68 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 72.—(Omission to hold election, or election, void.)

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 43, line 14, to leave out the words, "on motion, grant a mandamus for the," and to insert instead thereof the words "order an."
The purpose of the Amendment is to cause questions of procedure in the courts to be left to the rules of court in accordance with the ordinary practice in legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

6.14 p.m.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 43, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) The High Court may order that the costs of any person of proceedings under
paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of this section shall be paid by the council of the county or borough concerned.
This Amendment is intended to regularise or to legalise the existing practice Where the election of a mayor or an alderman of the council is not to be held on the appointed day or within the time limit, it was necessary to go to the High Court for an order to enable the election to be held. The two most usual cases are, first, where a candidate dies during the course of the election, and, second, when there is some mistake in the nomination of all the candidates and nobody is validly nominated. It is thought in those cases that it is not necessary to go to the court, and that a simple order by the returning officer ordering an election to he held is sufficient, and that is provided for by Sub-section (1). There still remain cases in which formerly a mandamus and now—after the Amendment just made by the Committee—an order of the court is required. In those cases it has been the practice to charge the costs on the corporation or the county council, because it is clearly unfair that a returning officer or some person of that sort who is obliged to apply to the court to get the order should be called upon by the court to meet the costs, but the corporation or county council are not parties to the action. It is in order to settle that point that this Amendment is necessary, and, as I have said, it does no more than confirm the existing practice.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Committee will understand, from the clear explanation of my right hon. and gallant Friend, the purpose of this Amendment. There is a doubt under the existing law, and the Amendment, as he has said, clears up that doubt. In the circumstances, I recommend the Committee to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 75.—(Meetings and proceedings of local authorities.)

6.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 44, line 18, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that a county councillor elected for an electoral division consisting
wholly of a county district or of some part of a county district shall not vote on any matter involving only expenditure on account of which the county district is not, for the time being, liable to be charged.
The purpose of this Amendment is, I think, clear. A similar proviso was in the Bill as it was originally introduced. In the words which it is now proposed to insert there are two slight alterations from the original proviso. I have inserted the word "only" after the word "involving" at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I understand that the Minister has no objection to that alteration. I have also taken out the words "with reference to the county," which appeared at the end of the original proviso, as those words are regarded as redundant.

Sir H. YOUNG: The slight change which was made in the original draft of the Bill was due to my own intervention in the matter but since then, having been in consultation with the County Councils' Association, I find there is a weight of opinion on the other side as to the inclusion of these words, and I recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 76.—(Disability of members of authorities for voting on account of interest in contracts, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 46, line 13, after the word "which," insert the words "it appears to."

In line 14, leave out the words are satisfied."—[Sir H. Young.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.20 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to ask the Minister to explain the scope of this Clause. The particular point with which I am concerned is that of
pecuniary interest direct or indirect in any contract or proposed contract.
It seems doubtful how far these words carry the matter, and in this connection I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 26 of the interim report, where it is stated that if disqualification from
membership is abolished and disqualification for voting is substituted, certain difficulties indicated previously will disappear. Then there is the proviso:
Provided care is taken that the disqualification is not likely to be so widespread as to render the council incapable of effective action.
I wish to raise the point as to how this proposal affects the members of co-operative societies. In those cases you have a very widely extended membership, a membership that is open to all, and cases have actually occurred in which there has been a tender to a council for some particular article put in by a co-operative society and all the members of the council were disqualified from voting upon it. In another instance, a committee was considering certain tenders and the tender of the co-operative society was the lowest. The chairman of the committee moved that the lowest tender be accepted, and he was the only member of the committee who did not belong to the co-operative society. One of the other members formally seconded the motion and it was carried, as the chairman was the only person who could vote.
The question thus arises of whether membership of a co-operative society is sufficient to bring a person within the scope of the Clause. The difficulty is not confined to co-operative societies. We have entered on a period of collectivism. Arrangements may be made in a district, for instance, in connection with the supply of milk by a co-operative society as part of a general scheme. You may have regulated trade with regard to some article of food such as potatoes under which all the potatoes would be sold by a board, in which all potato growers would be interested. In a particular area every single member of the rural council might be a member of such a board. When we enter upon an era in which a very large part of the field is being covered by cooperative societies or marketing boards, to which the majority of the people in a district belong, will they not have an indirect interest which would disqualify them under this Clause?
Difficulties, too, may arise with regard to employés in a particular town. Building trade employés, for example, might find it impossible to be on a council. But the particular point which I desire to have made clear is what will be the position of members of co-operative socie
ties and marketing boards under the Clause. Would mere membership of such bodies make it impossible for a member of a local authority to vote? I submit that there is a danger that the position indicated in that proviso to which I have already referred, is likely to arise in certain areas owing to this disqualification being so wide. Where practically the whole population belong to a co-operative society the only result of insisting upon this disqualification would be that the general public would be damnified by a council having to accept higher tenders than they might otherwise have obtained. I should like a declaration from the Minister as to his view on this matter, and as to whether he is prepared if necessary to accept an Amendment on Report dealing with the point I have raised.

6.25 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: My answer to the hon. Gentleman and my advice is this that it is possible, under the interpretation of Clause 76, Sub-sections (1) and (2, a), that a member of a co-operative society would be included in the scope of the Clause in respect of a contract concluded with that co-operative society. Normally, therefore, such a member would declare his interest, and would not vote on a resolution concerning such a contract. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that normally that would be the proper course to take. He rightly put to me, however, the question of what would happen in a district where many members of the authority were also members of a co-operative society or of some special hoard, and he suggested the possibility that that might interfere with the business of the council. That case, however, has been foreseen and provided against in Sub-section (8) of the Clause which provides:
The county council, as respects a member of a parish council, and the Minister, as respects a member of any other local authority, may, subject to such conditions as the county council or the Minister, as the case may be, may think fit to impose, remove any disability imposed by this section in any case in which the number of members of the local authority so disabled at any one time would he so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business, or in any other case in which the county council or the Minister, as the ease may be, are satisfied that it is in the interests of the inhabitants of the area that the disability should be removed.
That is a specific provision dealing with the case contemplated by the hon. Gentleman, and I think the declaration which he requires is the declaration which I now give, namely, that it is the intention of the Minister, in the administration of the Clause, to make use of that Sub-section and to remove difficulties in the way of business which might arise in the circumstances which have been indicated.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Minister has power, then, to remove any disabilities, but I take it that he would have to act upon a prior application. It would be impossible when certain contracts came up at a local body to get an immediate decision from the Minister. Are we to take it that the Minister would give a decision with regard to certain categories on the application of certain councils I should like a little more light on that point.

Sir H. YOUNG: The conditions under which the Minister may act are indicated in Sub-section (8):
In any case in which the number of members of the local authority so disabled at any one time would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business.
It is the actual condition of the council which will enable the Minister to act and therefore he would, in my view, be able to act in anticipation without waiting for an actual case to arise.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put,

and agreed to.

Clauses 77 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 84.—(Proceedings in respect of qualification.)

Amendments made: In page 49, line 32, leave out the word "every," and insert instead thereof the word "each."

In page 50, line 10, leave out the word "are,' and insert instead thereof the word "is".—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 85 to 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 97.—(Application to London of provisions relating to joint committees.)

Amendment made: In page 57, line 29, after the word "borough," insert the

word "council".—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 98 to 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 103.—(County medical officer of health.)

Amendment made: In page 60, line 19, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the word "but".—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 104 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 119.—(Security to be given by officers.)

Amendments made: In page 70, line 33, after the word "give," insert the words
or themselves take.
In line 37, insert the words:
(2) A local authority, other than a parish council, may, in the case of a person not employed by them but who is likely to be entrusted with the custody or control of money or property belonging to the local authority, take such security as they think sufficient for the person duly accounting for all such money or property."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

In page 71, line 4, after the word "give," insert the words "or may themselves take."

In line 8, insert the words:
(4) A local authority shall, in the case of persons not employed by them, and may in any other case, defray the cost of any security given or taken under this section, and every such security shall be produced to the auditor or auditors at the audit of the accounts of the local authority."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 120.—(Accountability of officers.)

Amendment made: In page 71, line 15, after the word "this," insert the word "Act".—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 122.—(Members of local authorities not to be appointed as officers.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): On Clause 122, there is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) and other hon. Members—in page 72, line 39, at the end, to add a new Sub-section:
(2) If it comes to the knowledge of an officer employed, whether under this or any other enactment, by a local authority, that a contract in which he has any pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect (not being a contract to which he is himself a party) has been, or is proposed to be, entered into by the authority or any committee thereof, he shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing to the authority of the fact that he is interested therein.
For the purposes of this section an officer shall be treated as having indirectly a pecuniary interest in a contract or proposed contract if he would have been so treated by virtue of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section seventy-six of this Act had he been a member of the authority.
(3) An officer of a local authority shall not, under colour of his office or employment, exact or accept any fee or reward whatsoever other than his proper remuneration.
(4) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) or contravenes any of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(5) References in this Section to a local authority shall include a reference to a joint committee appointed under Part III of this Act.

This Amendment can be moved as a new Clause.

Clauses 123 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 131.—(Scheme of adjustment of rights of existing authorities and officers.)

Amendment made: In page 77, line 35, leave out the words "and liabilities," and insert instead thereof the words "income, debts, liabilities, and expenses."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 132 to 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 140.—(Alteration of urban or rural districts and parishes, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 82, line 21, leave out the word "considers," and insert instead thereof the word "consider."

In page 83, line 10, leave out the word "is," and insert instead thereof the word "are."

In line 12, leave out the word "it," and insert instead thereof the word "they."

In line 42, leave out the words "by which."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 141 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 145.—(Review of county districts by county councils.)

6.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 88, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
(7) An order made under this Section, other than an order which is provisional only, shall he laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
This Sub-section was in the original Bill, but was taken out by the Joint Committee. It is a small matter, but the county councils attach considerable importance to it, as it gives a slight safeguard. I understand that it is accepted by the Minister.

Sir H. YOUNG: I accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 147.—(Supplemental provisions as to alterations of areas.)

Amendment made: In page 90, line 27, after the word "powers," insert the words "or duties."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 148.—(Miscellaneous provisions relating to orders.)

Amendment made: in page 91, line 39, after the word "procedure," insert the words:
and subject to compliance with the like conditions."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 149 to 161 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 162.—(Power to appropriate land.)

Amendment made: In page 102, line 5, at the end, insert the words:
(2) In the case of an appropriation under this section of land acquired under any enactment (including any enactment in this Act) or statutory order incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts, any work executed on the land after the appropriation has been effected shall, for the purposes of section sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, be deemed to have been authorised by the enactment or statutory order under which the land was acquired.
(3) On an appropriation of land under this section such adjustment shall he made in the accounts of the local authority as the Minister may direct."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 163 to 177 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 178.—(Savings.)

Amendment made: In page 110, line 34, leave out from the beginning to the second word "or," in line 39, and insert instead thereof the words:
effect any transaction which might be effected under those provisions otherwise than under those provisions and in accordance therewith."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 179.—(General and special county purposes.)

Amendment made: In page 111, line 19, at the end, insert the words:
(2) All expenses incurred by a county council under any enactment passed after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the enactment otherwise provides, be deemed to be expenses for general county purposes.

Clauses 180 to 188 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 189.—(General and special expenses of rural authority.)

Amendment made: In page 115, line 29, after the word "this," insert the word "Act".—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 192.—(Expenses of parish councils, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 118, line 21, at the end, insert the words:
(9) Every parish council and the chairman of the parish meeting for a rural parish not having a separate parish council shall keep such accounts as may be prescribed of the receipts and payments of the council or parish meeting, as the case may be."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 193 to 195 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 197 to 212 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 213.—(Adjustments of sinking Fund.)

Amendments made: In page 128, line 36, leave out the word "probable."

In page 129, line 11, leave out the word "probable."

In line 21, leave out the word "probable."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 214 to 216 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 217.—(Definitions.)

Amendments made: In page 132, line 10, leave out "1928," and insert instead thereof the words:
1933, or of any other enactment or statutary order relating to the supply of electricity.

In line 12, leave out from the word "of" to the end of line 13, and insert instead thereof the words:
tramways or light railways, or for the purposes."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 218 to 248 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 249.—(Procedure, etc., for making bye-laws.)

Amendment made: In page 151, line 40, at the end, add the words:
Provided that where, under or by virtue of any enactment, the power of an authority or person specified as aforesaid to confirm bye-laws has been transferred, the authority or person to whom that power has been transferred shall be deemed to be the authority or person specified as aforesaid."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 250 to 252 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 253.—(Sanction of local authority to promotion of, or Opposition to, Bills.)

Amendments made: In page 153, line 3, leave out the words "an absolute," and insert instead thereof the word "a."

In line 27, leave out the words "an absolute," and insert instead thereof the word "a".—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 254 to 266 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 267.—(Acceptance of gifts of property.)

Amendment made: In page 158, line 23, at the end, insert the words:
(2) Where the purposes of the gift are purposes for which the local authority are empowered to expend money raised from a rate, they may, subject to any condition or restriction attaching to the exercise of that power, defray expenditure incurred in the exercise of the powers conferred by the last preceding subsection out of money so raised."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

CLAUSE 268.—(Transfer of powers of vestries and churchwardens, etc.)

6.44 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 159, line 3, after the word "vestry," to insert the words:
or of any meeting of inhabitants in the nature of a vestry.
After the wonderful progress that we have made, the Committee will expect me to explain this Amendment. It is a simple point. Clause 268 is concerned with the transference of civil functions of the vestry to the borough or urban district council, but there is one power relating to the provision of burial grounds for part of a parish which rests in the meeting of the inhabitants of that part of the parish affected. It would be idle not to transfer the whole of the civil functions of a vestry, and this Amendment regularises that position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 159, line 4, after the word "parish," insert the words "or place."

In line 12, after the word "district," insert the words
or in a rural parish having a parish council.

In line 19, after the word "district," insert the words, "or to the parish council."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clauses 269 to 303 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 304.—(Definitions.)

Amendment made: In page 180, line 29, after the word "purposes," insert the words,
and, for the purposes of Part VI of this Act, includes a body which is a compensation authority for the purposes of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and an insurance committee constituted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause 305 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 306.—(Short title, date of commencement and extent.)

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 183, line 17, to leave out the word "January" and to insert instead thereof the word "June".

This Amendment is necessitated by the

fact of the number of regulations and standing orders that have to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Payments by county council towards remuneration of person acting as medical officer of health or sanitary inspector.)

Where a vacancy occurs in the office of a medical officer of health or of a sanitary inspector of a county district in respect of whose salary a payment is made by the county council under this Part of this Act, the county council shall, during Any period in which a person appointed under either of the two last preceding sections to act as medical officer of health or sanitay inspector of the district so acts, pay to the council of the county district a sum equal to one-half of the salary of that person:

Provided that—

(i) if the Minister certifies to the county council that the person so appointed to act as medical officer of health has failed to send to the Minister such reports and returns as are for the time being required by the regulations made under this Part of this Act respecting the duties of medical officers of health to be so sent, or that he has failed to give to the county medical officer of health such information as he is required to give under section one hundred and thirteen of this Act, the said sum equal to one-half of the salary of that person shall be forfeited to the Crown, and shall be paid to the Exchequer and not to the council of the county district; and

(ii) where a county district is not wholly situate in one county, such proportionate part only of the sum otherwise payable as may be certified by the Minister shall be paid by the council of each county in which a part of the district is situate.—[Sir H. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(General rate fund of rural authority.)

(1) All receipts of the council of a rural district, whether in respect of general or special expenses, shall be carried to the general rate fund of the district, and all liabilities falling to be discharged by the council, whether in respect of general or special expenses, shall be discharged out of that fund.

(2) Separate accounts shall he kept of receipts carried to, and payments made out of, the general rate fund of the district—

(a) in respect of general expenses;

(b) in respect of each class of special expenses, except that where, as respects
any two or more classes of special expenses, the part of the district chargeable is the same, one separate account may be kept as respects all expenses of both or all those classes;

and the account kept in respect of general expenses shall be called the general district account and an account kept in respect of any class of special expenses shall be called a special district account.—[Sir H. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of rural district council to levy rates.)

(1) The council of a rural district shall have power to levy rates to meet all liabilities falling to be discharged by the council for which provision is not otherwise made.

(2) Amounts leviable by a rural district council by means of a rate shall be chargeable—

(a) in the case of amounts leviable to meet liabilities in respect of general expenses, on the whole of the district; and

(b) in the case of amounts leviable to meet liabilities in respect of special expenses, on the part of the district chargeable separately therewith.—[Sir H. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Security for borrowing and priority of securities.)

(1) All moneys borrowed by a local authority, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be charged indifferently on all the revenues of the authority.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, all securities created by a local authority, whether under this Act or under any other enactment or statutory order, shall rank equally without any priority.

(3) Nothing in this Section shall—

(a) apply to any money borrowed by way of temporary loan or overdraft without security or;

(b) affect any priority existing at, or any right to priority conferred by a security created before, the commencement of this Act.

(4) The provisions of the first two paragraphs of Section eight of the Local Loans Act, 1875 (that is to say, the words from the beginning of the said Section to the words "date of such loan") shall cease to have effect in relation to borrowing by a local authority.—[Sir H. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Interpretation as respects Crown rights.)

The mention in this Act in relation to any particular matter of His Majesty's Royal prerogative shall not be held to prejudice or affect, in relation to that or to
any other matter, the general application of any rule of law with respect to any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown.—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Clause 18 (5) provides that the mayor is to have precedence in all places in the borough, but a proviso is made with regard to the Royal Prerogative. The Royal Prerogative is also dealt with in another part of the Bill. The question has been raised whether the express saving of the Royal Prerogative in these two instances might possibly lead to the inference that in other matters the Bill would bind the Crown. The new Clause is moved in order to avoid any possibility of this inference being drawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Disclosure by officers of interests in contracts, & c.)

(1) If it comes to the knowledge of an officer employed, whether under this Act or any other enactment, by a local authority, that a contract in which he has any pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect (not being a contract to which he is himself a party) has been, or is proposed to be, entered into by the authority or any committee thereof, he shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing to the authority of the fact that he is interested therein.

For the purposes of this section an officer shall be treated as having indirectly a pecuniary interest in a contract or proposed contract if he would have been so treated by virtue of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section
(3) of Section seventy-six of this Act had he been a member of the authority.

(2) An officer of a local authority shall not, under colour of his office or employment, exact or accept any fee or reward whatsoever other than his proper remuneration.

(3) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) or contravenes any of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section he shall for each offence he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(4) References in this Section to a local authority shall include a reference to a joint committee appointed under Part III of this Act.—[Mr. Knight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause is moved in substitution for an Amendment which I had on the Paper to Clause 122. I have received an intimation that the Government will accept it. I am glad to say that the proposed Clause has the full approval of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Under Clause 76 we have put upon members of local authorities the duty of disclosing any interest they may have in contracts and the object of this new Clause is to put a similar duty on officers of local authorities. It is thought not to be right in principle that this duty which is put upon members of an authority should not at the same time be placed upon the officers.

6.52 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: This new Clause has been explained by my hon. and learned Friend. I have gone into it very carefully with the representatives of the association concerned, and I can accept it.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Part III: Non-county boroughs.)

Amendments made: In page 187, line 10, column 4, after the word "Rawtenstall," insert the word "Stretford."

In line 19, column 2, after the word "Chatham," insert the words "Dartford."

In line 23, column 4, after the word "Ealing," insert the word "Finchley."

In line 27, column 4, after the word "Hornsey," insert the word "Southgate."

In line 28, column 4, after the word "Twickenham," insert the words "Willesden, Wood Green."

In line 46, column 2, after the word "Eccles," insert the word "Fleetwood."

In page 188, line 28, column 2, at beginning insert the word "Bilston."

In line 30, column 2, after the words "Newcastle-under-Lyme," insert the words "Rowley Regis."

In line 45, column 4, after the word "Brighouse," insert the word "Goole."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Provisions relating to the stages of the election of a county councillor or of councillors of a borough preceding the poll. Part II: Times for the proceedings at an election of a county councillor or of councillors of a borough Part III: Provisions relating to contested elections.)

6.55 p.m.

Sir G. HURST: I beg to move, in page 190, line 45, to leave out the words "fill up," and to insert instead thereof the words "prepare for signature."
Paragraph (5) provides that in certain circumstances the proper officer shall provide nomination papers to any local government elector and shall at his request fill up the nomination paper. The words "fill up" are misleading as they might suggest that the proper officer may fill up the whole of it, but it is not intended that he should sign the nomination.

Mr. HACKING: The words "fill up" have been part of the Statute for 50 years, but in view of the pressure that my hon. and learned Friend brings to bear on the Government, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, in page 191, line 9, after the word "writing," to insert the words "on, or".
This makes it clear that the consent to nomination may be given on the day of delivery of the nomination paper in addition to any period within the previous month.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 191, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in the case of an election to fill a casual vacancy if the returning officer, in the case of an election of a county councillor, or the mayor, in the case of an election of a councillor of a borough, is satisfied that owing to the absence of a person from the United Kingdom it has not been reasonably practicable for his consent in writing to be given as aforesaid a telegram consenting to his nomination and purporting to have been sent by him shall be deemed, for the purpose of this paragraph, to be consent in writing given by him on the day on which it purports to have been sent and attestation of his consent shall not be required.
The object of the Amendment is clear, and I believe the Government have intimated their willingness to accept it. It merely provides that when a casual vacancy arises a telegram instead of a letter shall be considered evidence of acceptance.

Mr. HACKING: We are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 192, line 14, leave out the second word "of."—(Mr. Hacking.)

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 192, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 36, and to insert instead thereof the words:
8. A candidate who is validly nominated for more than one electoral division of a county or for more than one ward of a borough shall, by notice signed, attested, and delivered as aforesaid, withdraw from his candidature in all those electoral divisions or wards, as the case may be, except one, and if he does not so withdraw he shall be deemed to have withdrawn from his candidature in all those electoral divisions or wards, as the case may be.
The object of this Amendment is to give the discretion to the candidate in choosing which of the wards of the borough he shall stand for if he is nominated for more than one ward.

Mr. HACKING: This merely places the responsibility on the candidate, and the Government accepts the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:—

In page 194, line 21, column 2, to leave out the word "twentieth," and to insert

instead thereof the word "twelfth."

In line 25, column 2, to leave out the word "twelfth,' and to insert instead thereof the word "eighth."

In line 29, column 2, to leave out the word "eleventh," and to insert instead

thereof the word "seventh."

In line 33, column 2, to leave out "5," and to insert instead thereof "2."

In line 34, column 2, to leave out the word "ninth," and to insert instead thereof the word "sixth."—[Mr. M. Beaumont.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 194, line 21, column 2, to leave out the word "twentieth," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelfth."
These Amendments, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), are all reductions of the period of time between either the notice of election or the delivery of nomination papers and the day of the election. In each case the principle behind the reduction is to save expense and the prolongation of election contests, and so make it more simple for suitable candidates to contest county council elections. In fact, all that the Amendments do is to bring the time in each case to the same level as in the case of borough council elections.

Mr. HACKING: All these Amendments are certainly contentious. I do not know whether the House will desire in these circumstances that I should argue them, or whether I should merely say that the Government cannot accept any of them.

Mr. WISE: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

7.2 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I just wish to raise one point. On page 195, line 33, appear the words:
3. The poll shall commence at eight o'clock in the morning and be kept open till eight o'clock in the afternoon of the same day and no longer.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear, because of misunderstandings that have occurred in many areas and at many elections, whether prospective voters who have actually entered the polling-booth but have not yet voted at the moment the clock strikes eight o'clock, have lost their opportunity of voting, or whether when they have received their voting papers they are according to law entitled to vote. The view has been held, at least in my area, that once the clock strikes eight the ballot boxes themselves must be seized and, whatever the number of voters in the polling booth may be, that they must
go outside without being allowed to vote. This being a consolidating Act it should be easier for the Government to make the necessary alteration so that, once people are inside the polling booth, they may vote. Surely the number could not be more than 50 even at the largest polling station. I ask that they should not be turned out without their papers being handed to the returning officer.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: As the hon. Member rightly says that this question would only affect a small number of people. The presiding officer has the power to allow only a certain number of people in the polling booth at the same time. This provision is only a re-enactment of the existing law. It is hard to say how the presiding officer would interpret this portion of the law, but it must really be left in his hands. He is the person who decides whether the clock has struck eight or not; he is the person who has the responsibility of stating whether or not it is eight o'clock. In practice, there is very little doubt that electors would be allowed to vote when once they were inside the polling booth. Although I cannot foretell the interpretation of the law which will be made by the presiding officer, that would be the effect in practice. I hope the hon. Member will be content with that assurance.

Mr. GROVES: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to put the further point: Is there anything to prevent the presiding officer saying that he will accept a paper after the clock has struck?

Mr. HACKING: It is in his discretion. If he says that the clock has struck eight, it has struck; if he says it has not, it has not.

Schedules Three to Six agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments containing provisions as to the acquisition of and other dealings in land by Local Authorities not affected by the provisions of Part VII of this Act.)

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, in page 228, line 28, to leave out "1928" and to insert instead thereof "1933."
The actual words in line 28 are "The Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1928." Since the Bill was drafted a further Electricity Supply Act has been passed this year, and that provides the necessity for these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 228, line 38, leave out "1931," and insert instead thereof "1933."—[Sir H. Young.]

Schedules Eight to Ten agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

Amendments made:

In page 243, line 10, after the word "of," insert the word "section."

In page 250 line 7, column 2, leave out the word "Improvement," and insert instead thereof the word "Protection."

In page 256, line 36, column 3, after the word "relates," insert the words "to parish councils and."

In page 265, line 26, column 3, leave out the words "sub-sections (5) and," and insert instead thereof the word "subsection."

In page 270, line 44, column 3, leave out the word "section," and insert instead thereof the word "sub-sections."

In page 272, line 38, column 3, leave out the word "Sections," and insert instead thereof the word "Section."—[Sir H. Young.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of 4 & 5, Geo. 5, c. 17.)

7.10 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words
twelve months," and to insert instead thereof the words "two years.
This Amendment deals with Clause 1 (4) of the Bill, which carries out Article 10 of The Hague Convention. Article 10 reads as follows:
Nationalisation of the husband during marriage shall not involve change in the nationality of the wife except with her consent.
This, of course, means that when a foreign woman has married an English husband and thereby has become an English citizen, if her husband in the course of marriage should change his nationality, this foreign-born wife who has become a British subject need not, unless she wishes, follow the example of her husband and take on his new nationality. She is given under Clause 1 (4) a period of 12 months in which to state whether she wishes to retain her English nationality or whether she wishes to follow that adopted by her husband. My Amendment is to increase that period from 12 months to two years. When this Bill was originally introduced in another place, a period of six months had been inserted by the Government, and that was changed to 12 months, thereby indicating that their Lordships realised that there was some basis and foundation for lengthening the period given to the woman to decide what she desired to do. Our contention is that in many cases 12 months may not be sufficient.
We have had cases brought to our notice of husbands changing their nationality without informing their wives that they intended to do so. I do not wish to suggest what motive may have prompted them to follow any such practice, but there was a particular case brought to my notice in which a British citizen changed his nationality and became a Japanese, the idea being to get out of some obligation he owed to his wife. He did not inform his wife of the change, because he knew, no doubt, that to abstain from doing so would prevent a good deal of trouble. The difficulty is that in many cases where husbands wish to change their nationality for some purpose of this kind it is very likely that they do not inform their wives, and their wives do not find out that they have actually
changed their nationality until, not many months, but many years have passed. We suggest, therefore, through the Amendment, that a wife should be allowed a period of two years before she makes her request to remain a British citizen.
I admit that in the latter part of the Sub-section the Secretary of State is given power in special circumstances to lengthen the period to any time he thinks right. If we felt absolutely certain that this Sub-section would always be interpreted with that generosity with which we are sure the present Home Secretary would interpret it, we should not be so anxious to press the Amendment. But we want to secure that there shall be a reasonable time in which women who have been deceived on this question by their husbands shall be able to discover it and to put in their claim to retain British nationality.

7.15 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): In the existing legislation there is no definition of the period during which a declaration should be made, and the Home Office is advised that it is desirable to have a period inserted. It is quite clear that the declaration ought to be made as soon as possible after the wife becomes aware of the change. As the hon. and gallant Member said, in another place the period was six months, but, after consideration, it was raised to one year. In a case such as the hon. and gallant Member has cited, where a husband desires to hide from his wife the change in his nationality, it is clear that he might be successful in doing so over a period of a great deal more than even two years. I would assure the hon. and gallant Member that we are satisfied that the period of a year will cover the very large majority of cases, and give ample time for action on the part of the wife. There remains, as he also knows, the further power which the Secretary of State has to deal at any time with a problem of this kind. If a wife has not made the declaration within the period of one year she will have to explain why, and if the explanation is a reasonable one I have not the slightest doubt that it will be accepted, not only while I am at the Home Office but when anybody else is
there. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Captain CAZALET: I am quite prepared to do what the Home Secretary suggests, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 (Short title, citation and printing) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment, to the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

7.17 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I cannot let the Third Reading of this Bill pass entirely unchallenged. I wish to put on record the very strong feeling that obtains among, I think, practically all the women's organisations in this country that this Bill is a totally inadequate way of meeting the difficulties. We do not deny that it will relieve a certain number of cases of hardship, but it will be deeply regretted if the passing of this Bill is treated as a reason for delaying further legislation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. lady is now talking about something which is not in the Bill, and she cannot do that on Third reading.

Miss RATHBONE: I will not enlarge on that point, but I think I am in order in asking, that the Home Secretary should not use this Bill as an excuse for going no further. If you rule that out of order, perhaps I shall be in order in discussing the defects of this Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Lady can refer to what she may consider to be defects in the Bill, dealing with what is in the Bill, but she cannot deal with defects which are not in the Bill

Miss RATHBONE: Then I fear the only point I shall be able to refer to is the Clause which puts a limitation, such as has not existed before, on the period during which a woman may claim British nationality under special circumstances.
I think we have reason to feel a grievance that this Bill, which professes to put this country into line with the proposed Hague Convention, lays down something which is not in that Convention, and is a Bill which not only does not do much that is desired by all who wish to see a woman free to retain her British nationality but actually limits such freedom as she already possesses. In view of your Ruling, I can say no more.

7.21 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: I would like to say that we do appreciate the attitude of the Home Secretary in regard to certain aspects of this subject. We appreciate what was done with regard to registration some months ago, and also the fact that this Bill will bring relief to a very considerable body of women who to-day are suffering under an injustice. Although we had a full discussion, which cannot now be repeated, on the Second Reading of the Bill, we should like to have some word from the Home Secretary to say that the observations of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) are true, and that this Bill will not be used by the Government as a reason for doing nothing further in this matter. With regard to the Amendment we discussed a few minutes ago, the Home Secretary used the words "as long as the woman is aware." He said that within one year after she is aware that her husband has changed his nationality she may claim British nationality. Of course, that does not meet the whole situation. The word "aware" is not in this Clause, and, therefore, we have to depend entirely on the good will of the Home Secretary to regard her claim as a reasonable one. I suppose it is impossible at this late stage to insert in the Bill the words he used just now; but we should like some declaration from him that the passing of this Bill will not be used, as has happened in other instances in the past, as an excuse for the Government to say that the time is not fit for proceeding further in these matters.

7.23 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think I made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that nothing the House would do in passing this legislation would preclude further con-
sideration of other aspects of this problem; that is, I think, quite clear. With regard to what has been said about this particular subject, I think it is quite dear that we are not taking anything away from a woman; in fact, we are rather improving her position by this alteration that we are making in order to carry out the letter and the spirit of what was settled at the Hague.

7.24 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: I would like to ask the Home Secretary what happens in the case of a British woman married to an American during the first year or two of married life. I ask that question because I have a daughter married to an American, and when she was going away there was great difficulty about her nationality. According to our law she had ceased to be a British subject, and we had great difficulty in getting over the situation. A year and a-half afterwards she came back to this country and she had a baby three months old. The baby had a passport, but she had none, because she had no nationality at all. Sufficient time had not then elapsed for her to obtain American citizenship, which she has got now. In similar circumstances which may occur we want to know what is the position during the first year of a British woman who marries an American.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that the Third Reading of this Bill, which is a comparatively small one, must not be used as an occasion for putting conundrums on the whole question of the law of naturalisation. I am bound to say that in the interests of order; but if the Home Secretary wishes to answer that question, and finds he can answer it within the terms of the Bill, I have no objection to his doing so.

7.25 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: That point is dealt with in the Bill. It does cover that particular case.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: I would rather have the Home Secretary's assurance.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [Lords].

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

7.26 p.m.

Major HILLS: I think it would meet the convenience of the House if I did not move my Motion, to recommit the Bill to a Select Committee, for as the Government have taken up the Bill the result of a Division would be a foregone conclusion. As I do not wish to repeat what I have to say to the House, I will, with permission, reserve my remarks for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Restrictions on the taking and sale of wild birds.)

7.27 p.m.

Mr. BUCHAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
being birds of a British species, and for the purposes of this Act a species shall be deemed to he British if, and only if, it is a species resident in or visiting Great Britain in a wild state.
This Amendment and the following ones are purely drafting Amendments, to clarify the wording of the Bill. and have been settled with the Home Office.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 2, column 2, leave out the words "(all British species)."

In line 7, column 1, leave out "(all British species)."

In line 19, column 2, leave out "(all British species)."

In line 20, column 2, leave out "all British species."

In line 24, column 2, leave out "(all British species).'

In line 25, column 2, leave out "(all British species).'

In line 26, column 1, leave out "(all British species)."

In line 31, column 2, leave out "(all British species)."

In line 35, column 1, leave out "all British species."

Leave out lines 37 to 39.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time ".—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

7.30 p.m.

Major HILLS: I want to put before this House the reasons why I think that this Bill should not pass into law. In doing so, I give full credit to the humane spirit of the promoters. I quite recognise that they are inspired by the highest humanity, and that they wish to spare birds from suffering. My objection to the Bill is not because of what they intend to do, but of the way in which they do it. In my opinion, they are doing what is right in a wrong way.
May I describe to the House the effect of this Bill? This is the first time that the Bill has been discussed in this House. It passed its Second Reading without discussion and, I understand, it passed its Committee stage very quickly. It is being discussed for the first time on Third Reading. If this Bill passes, it will be, in effect, impossible for anyone to keep any of the birds scheduled in the Bill as a pet. The Schedule includes many popular cage birds such as the chaffinch, the greenfinch, the goldfinch and the bullfinch, and no one will be able to keep such birds as pets, if this Bill passes. The Bill goes far beyond the caging of a bird. It does not only make the caging of such birds impossible, but their possession. Birds cannot he kept, even in large and well constructed and managed avaries, or in zoological gardens, if they are birds of these species. We cannot even do what many people have done in the past, keep a tame bird in a garden. Ravens, jays anal jackdaws, and other birds of that character, are often kept in a state of liberty. That will become practically impossible if this Bill passes.
I ought to say, in passing, that this is made impossible because the Bill prohibits the offering for sale of any bird to which this Act applies. The people who keep these birds are not the wealthy people. They are people who have not the opportunity, which some of us in this House have, of going into the country and taking birds from the nest. An enormous majority of the people that keep British cage-birds are of small means, living in humble circumstances, and it is against them that the Bill is directed. It will fall upon their shoulders, and upon their shoulders alone. If the House thinks that the caging of a bird under proper conditions is in itself cruel and that birds ought not to be caged—I do not think that they do think
that—they will, of course, vote for the Bill. If it is the general opinion of this House that the caging of birds even under the best conditions, is a wicked and cruel thing, hon. Members must vote for the Bill, but I ought to say that that is not the opinion of the promoters, who have made it clear—and this comes out in the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords to which this Bill went—that what they are trying to prevent is not the cruelty in the caging, but in the catching, of the birds.
It is stated, in the minutes of evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, that the cruelty is almost entirely connected with the trafficking and the method of catching. That is contained in question and answer 1125 of the minutes of evidence. It is stated more than once that it is not alleged that there is cruelty in the caging of the birds but in the catching of them, and especially in the methods by which birds are conveyed by the catcher to the market to be sold. The promoters are therefore not accusing the bird-keepers of cruelty. Nor do the Home Office. Summing up the evidence, the Select Committee say that cruelty is almost entirely connected with the catching of birds. The Home Office issued a Memorandum in which it is stated:
The Home Office is not in possession of any information which would justify it in expressing an opinion upon the question whether the caging of the birds scheduled is necessarily attended with such an amount of cruelty that it ought to be prohibited.
Therefore, the Home Office are not convinced that cruelty exists in the caging of birds. More important than all, in 1919, a Departmental Committee on bird protection reported. It was appointed just before the War. It did not sit during the War, and reported in 1919. It examined 36 witnesses and issued a very long report, with 12 schedules. It went very carefully into the whole question of bird protection, and its chairman was the late Mr. Edwin Montagu, who was very well known to many hon. Members. If there was one man who loved birds it was Mr. Montagu. In paragraph 136 of that report, the Committee say:
We have heard a great deal of evidence on the keeping of British birds in cages. Properly safeguarded, we see no reason why the practice should be accompanied by cruelty and many wild birds do in fact live in captivity in perfect health for long
periods. The keeping of cage-birds provides many town dwellers with an innocent solace and amusement, and we see no reason for its general abolition.
That announcement is far more weighty, and more attention should be given to it than to some of the partisan statements which are contained in the evidence given before the Select Committee. Neither those who promoted the Bill in the House of Lords, nor the Home Office, nor the Departmental Committee, considered that the keeping of birds in cages is cruel. But if some people do think that, consider where that leads. If you say that there is any cruelty in keeping any animal in captivity, why confine the argument to birds? You must carry it on to the zoological gardens, and to all those exhibitions of animals which are a source of pleasure, interest and instruction to a large part of our population. You need not always be logical in your laws, but you must be just, and if it means hitting a part of the population which is poor and not represented in this House you cannot, I think, leave untouched the larger, and perhaps wealthier, population, who take their pleasure in watching animals in the zoos. Any argument which defends the keeping of wild animals in cages in zoological gardens will apply to the keeping of birds under proper conditions.
May I note another very important question? The size of cage may be very small. A bird keeper who keeps a bird in a cage cannot be accused of cruelty, even though the cage is much too small. Under the Protection of Birds Act, 1925, Section 2 (1), the cage need only be of such a size as to enable a bird
freely to stretch its wings.
I believe that that was Sir Harry Brittain's Bill.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that an hon. Member is in order in raising something which is not contained in the Bill? The right hon. Member is referring to the size of cages, but I cannot see that in the Bill. May I ask whether he is in order in discussing upon Third Reading things which are not in the Bill?

Major HILLS: On that point of Order. I submit that I am entitled to show the effect of the Bill. The Bill, as originally drawn in the House of Lords, I may say
for the information of the hon. Member, prohibited the caging of birds. That was in Lord Buckmaster's original Bill, but he dropped it because of the difficulty of defining what was a cage, and this Bill was brought in in its stead, with the same intention of preventing the caging of birds by preventing the catching of them.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Captain BOURNE): It is a well-known rule of the House that, on. Third Reading, hon. Members can only deal with what is contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot make a point about a Bill that was introduced in another place, and which cannot possibly concern us now.

Major HILLS: I must go very carefully. I will try to observe your ruling. I take it that I am right in using as an argument against the passing of this Bill an analogy from other relations between man and the animal kingdom. If there is cruelty, for goodness sake put down that cruelty. So far as I am concerned, you cannot do it too strongly, but be sure that the cruelty is in the caging of the bird, and is not in the process which enables the bird-lover to get the bird. I do not care how strenuously my hon. Friend—he need not interrupt me; I am perfectly in order——

Sir ROBERT GOWER: I am not suggesting that my right hon. and gallant Friend is out of order, but I cannot follow his argument.

Major HILLS: I have a case to make for something like 1,500,000 who keep birds and who are not in the least cruel, who are as kindly people as any body of people in this House, but who in the Press are being dubbed cruel and heartless and are held up to public obliquy. In doing that I shall endeavour to keep within the Rules of Order, and I beg my hon. Friend not to interrupt me unless I stray beyond those Rules, in which case you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will correct me. I take it that I am in order in referring to the report of the Select Committee on which this Bill is founded. In that Report it is stated that the keepers of birds number 1,500,000, and that they are mostly poor and live in towns; and, if this Bill passes, they will be prevented from buying the sort of birds that they want to keep.
I hope the House will believe me when I say in all sincerity that I have loved
birds all my life. If I go into the country, a large part of my time is occupied in watching birds, and they are some of the most beautiful creatures on this earth; but I, being able to do that, am not going to say that people who have not those facilities, who do not own gardens and cannot see birds under natural conditions, are not to have the chance of coming into contact with our bird population. The study of nature is a very valuable part of man's education, and a great many people are able to enjoy it in gardens, in the country, in woods and by streams; but here we have people who live under quite different conditions, and who only have one way of knowing birds. Many of these people are naturalists, who not only keep birds, but study them, and birds are very interesting creatures.
I shall probably be told that only about 15 per cent. of the birds exhibited at shows are of British species, the rest being foreign birds, but I do not think that that would apply to the 1,500,000 bird-keepers in this country. Even assuming that it does, I do not see why those people should not be enabled to follow their favourite pursuit provided that they do not inflict cruelty. May I say also that the bird population of this country has the same characteristic as the human population—it is more intelligent than the bird populations in other countries. Anybody who has kept foreign birds will know that they are stupid birds. Anyone who has kept canaries knows that they are dull birds, and the difference between keeping a canary and keeping a highly intelligent bird like a bullfinch is very great indeed.
If it be decided that it is cruel to keep all birds in captivity, then, of course, it must be forbidden. But if it be agreed that, provided decent conditions are observed, and that the cage is of a decent size, such as has now been agreed upon by the fanciers and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is enforced at all the shows, and will, it is hoped, soon be made compulsory by law—if it be agreed that under these conditions it is not cruel to keep a bird in a cage, then I ask the House to be careful with regard to this Bill. The bird-keepers have no trade union, but I hope that some hon. Members oppo-
site will speak up for them. They are largely town-dwellers, they are not represented here, and their case was put very badly before the Select Committee. If it be said that they are cruel in keeping birds in cages, listen to what this Bill will allow. It will allow a man to go out and catch birds, and, as long as he kills them, he keeps within the law; but if he keeps them alive he will be breaking the law as soon as this Bill passes. The Bill still gives him leave to catch birds for the purpose of killing them. I feel a responsibility in this matter, because no one has put the case for these people. They have a case, and it ought to be put to the House, though it may be that the House will turn it down. It was not put in the House of Lords, it was not put before the Select Committee, and we had no debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House.
From some of the arguments that I find in the public Press, and from some of the speeches on the Second Reading in the House of Lords, it seems to be assumed that for birds the state of nature is a state of unalloyed bliss. It seems to be assumed that, once they are free, all is happiness with them, and it is only man who comes in with his iniquities and makes them unhappy. As a matter of fact, however, there goes on in nature a struggle and a contest far more severe than anything that man brings about, and that is particularly so in the life of a bird. It is exposed to very many dangers which it escapes by being made a pet, even if, as such, it is caged. I notice that Lord Buckmaster, in a very fine passage of his speech in the House of Lords, asked who could think of caging larks that sing at Heaven's gate? I cannot repeat his eloquence, but I would remind the House that sometimes at Heaven's gate, or at any rate in the sky, the lark may meet a hawk which will tear it to pieces. Do not, therefore, let it be thought that this Bill entirely serves the bird's purpose; do not let it be thought that a sort of perfection in nature exists in bird life, and that it only descends deeper and deeper as man comes into the picture. That is not so at all. Man has done a certain amount of harm in the animal kingdom, but has also done a very great deal of good, and birds, especially small birds, are better
protected from their enemies than they would be if man were not here.
I should not be putting the whole case if I did not point out that the present Bill is passed for this nation—it does not affect the foreigner. In some cases the foreign bird is not an expensive bird, but in other cases it is, and birds of that sort can still be caged. It is entirely on one class of the bird-keeping population that this Bill will fall; it will fall entirely on those who keep British birds. Someone has to decide this question, and I can imagine no better tribunal than the House of Commons. It touches one of the most intricate problems in life—the exact right that we have over the animal kingdom. I am certain that, whether the House agrees with me or not, it will come to a wise decision, but I do not think I am unreasonable in feeling some resentment when I think of Noble Lords in another place, who possess their own gardens where they can see birds at their leisure, legislating for the poor man who is condemned to live in a street. I confess that I rather resent that, because I regard it as class legislation. It was, further, stated in evidence that this Bill will not entirely put down the taking of birds, because a man could still employ an agent to go and take birds in the country, and that would not be breaking the law, for the birds would not be offered for sale. That does not apply to the working man in a town. We know very well that in walking down any town street we shall see birds, and, very often, the poorer the street the more birds we shall see.
There is another point that arises on the Schedule. All the falcon tribe are left out. I should have thought that, if any bird was ill at ease in a cage, it was a peregrine falcon, but I am wondering whether I am unfair and taking too low a view on this point, because the keeping of falcons is a favourite pursuit of the rich. I notice, also, that owls of all British species except the little owl are under this prohibition of capture. I wonder why the little owl is left out. The only difference that I know of between the little owl and the brown owl or the barn owl is that, whereas the brown owl and the barn owl live largely on small birds like sparrows and on mice and rats, the little owl lives on the young of game
birds—partridges and pheasants. I can conceive of no other reason why it is left out. I do not think I am far wrong when I say that this Bill carries with it class legislation. It affects very hardly the class that keeps birds.
I have detained the House far longer than I intended, and I thank hon. Members for the patience with which they have listened to statements which, I know, are distasteful to many of them. I have been in mean streets on some days such as we had in the last sultry summer and the whole street has been enlivened and glorified by the song of cage birds. I beg the House before they pass the Bill to give full weight to the considerations that I have urged, and to bear in mind the sort of persons who keep these birds and the right they have to fair treatment from the House.

8.1 p.m.

Sir R. GOWER: I have listened with some amazement to my right hon. Friend's speech. It seems obvious to me that he has not read the Bill, otherwise he would not have made the statements he has. The Bill only applies to the taking of
any wild bird, being a bird to which this Act applies, with the intention that it shall be sold alive and to the person who sells, offers for sale, or has in his possession for sale any live bird, being a bird to which this Act applies other than close-ringed specimens bred in captivity.
I am quoting from the Bill. There can be no question at all as to the meaning of the words and there is no doubt that the greater part of my right hon. and gallant Friend's speech was entirely irrelevant.

Major HILLS: How?

Sir R. GOWER: If my right hon. Friend will read the Bill and compare it with his speech he will see how really irrelevant his statements were. There is one point which I greatly regret that he has endeavoured to make. He suggested that those who are promoting it have been guilty of presenting one which is in the nature of class legislation. There is not one word of truth in his suggestion. It is clear that my right hon. Friend is not acquainted with the subject because, if he had been to those places where birds are sold, he would ascertain that foreign birds can be purchased at as cheap if not at a cheaper price than the
British birds which are included in the Schedule to this Bill. I must express my regret that he should have adduced matters of class as an argument in opposing the Third Reading of this Bill. I should like, in order to rebut some of my right hon. Friend's statements, to read part of an article which appeared in the "Field" written by the editor a short time ago. I agree with what a speaker said in another place that there is no paper more honest, more manly and straightforward than the "Field." The editor of that paper personally went to Club Row and described what he saw there. He said:
I found a barrow with wooden cages containing linnets, goldfinches and a variety of other birds. The woman in charge of the birds took linnet after linnet from a tiny cage, held it up by its tail and legs, dipped its little beak into a glass of dirty water and put it head first into a cardboard box, closed the box and pocketed a shilling. She took and dipped a goldfinch and sold that Then I caught sight of a song thrush in a wire cage, crouching against the bars. Others watched it besides myself. 'New to it. He don't know where he are in that cage" I heard a man say behind me. That bird was sold for six shillings. He bought it and it was thrust into a cardboard box.
The Editor of the "Field" bought one or two of these birds himself, and he describes the condition of distress in which they were. When I tell the House that it was proved before the Committee in another place that many of these wild birds sustained broken legs and wings and their condition was most pitiful, I think hon. Members will agree that an Act should be passed to prevent cruelty of this nature. I have the honour and privilege of presiding over the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We caution where we can, but on many occasions we consider it our duty to prosecute. There is nothing more painful to members of the Council than to find cases of cruelty in which we are advised by the most eminent of His Majesty's Counsel that it is no use to institute prosecutions. I would ask hon. Members very carefully to consider the terms of the Bill and I am sure they will then support it. It is only a start in the right direction. I wish it went far further than it does. I appeal with confidence to the House to give it the Third Reading. In conclusion, I would point out that only 10 per cent. of captured wild birds survive.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I also appeal to hon. Members to give serious consideration to the Bill and, when the time comes, to vote against it. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has given the ground upon which propaganda has been carried on throughout the country. We are asked to believe that people who have these birds are cruel. It is because of cruelty to birds that we are asked to pass legislation to restrict their possession. I believe the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), who has put his name to the Bill, like many other Members of the House, is a fisherman. I think I have read in his books something that indicated his keen pleasure in following that hobby. I believe there is as much cruelty in fishing as there is in catching birds. No one knows where you will end if you begin this policy of restricting the rights of individuals over their pets. I have been in the houses of men who were the possessors of a large number of various kinds of birds. Recently I went into the aviary of a man living within a few miles of where I live, and I was surprised to find that the place where he kept his birds was infinitely superior to the houses of people living in the same town. There is no question that men who are interested in these birds have no desire whatever to act cruelly, and it is unfair to suggest that the bird fancier is addicted to cruelty. Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman says, the Bill lays it down that if a man is in possession of any wild bird——

Sir R. GOWER: For sale.

Mr. GRAHAM: Bird fanciers have birds for sale.

Sir R. GOWER: Will the hon. Member look at the concluding part of Clause 1 (I, b)?

Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that that refers to birds described in the Schedule.

Sir R. GOWER: The words are:
Being a bird to which this Act applies, other than close-ringed specimens bred in captivity.

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, but the birds in captivity will die out, and there will be no more birds kept by the bird fancier belonging to this species. The Subsection lays it down that any person whoever is proved guilty of having in his
possession any live bird for sale, being a bird to which the Act applies is liable to a penalty of something like £2. Quite a large number of us have been bird nesters when we were boys. We caught some of the birds that are mentioned here and offered them for sale, and boys in the country villages are doing so now. A large proportion of the birds owned by bird fanciers are larks and linnets. You are going to make lads who are pursuing this very common habit criminals because they have these birds for sale.
I know a large number of men who make it a regular hobby to go in for the keeping of cage birds. One of the very best features of that is that few of the men are in any sense addicted to bad habits. The ordinary bird fancier does not spend most of his time either in gambling or in drinking. Bird fancying is practically his only hobby, and he spends a big part of his time and a large part of his resources, in trying to secure the very best type of birds he can get. He prides himself on the condition in which he keeps his birds, and in many of the local bird shows some of the principal prizes are offered in respect of the condition of the birds themselves, which is evidence that, as far as the ordinary bird fancier is concerned, he has no desire to act cruelly towards the birds in his possession any more than any one of us would desire to act cruelly towards a dog of which we might be the owner. Some of the finest examples of devotion I have even seen have been those of men fighting in defence of their dogs. It is very much to the credit of our people that, with comparatively few exceptions, we have an innate love for animals, and that it is against the grain for men to act cruelly towards animals.
I believe that the bird fanciers themselves are particularly anxious that there should be some provision passed by Parliament to ensure that the particular thing to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) referred in the quotation which he gave from the "Field," should be prevented. Men guilty of cruelty to birds ought to be punished very severely, and as far as bird fanciers are concerned they would be prepared to give the utmost support to Parliament if such a line were taken. They are afraid, however, that the result
of this Measure will be to limit largely, but not entirely, a very innocent hobby which is carried on by large numbers of members of the working class. I sincerely hope that the House will agree to hold up the Bill until some sort of agreement is reached which will secure the birds against cruelty, and, at the same time, make possible the continuance of the enjoyment of the hobby by large sections of the working classes of this country.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the discussion began by reminding us that this was the first time that this Bill had been discussed in this House. That is true, but I hope that no one will conclude from that fact that the Bill has not, in fact, been adequately considered. As long ago as last February the Second Reading of the Bill was moved in another place. A long Debate took place on that occasion, and, as a result, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee in another place who considered it very carefully and amended it very considerably. Since then the Bill has come to us. It is true that there was no opposition on Second Reading, but it had been considered by a Standing Committee upstairs, and there was plenty of opportunity there for any Members of the Committee who cared to do so to put down Amendments to the Bill. In point of fact, the Bill was slightly amended by that Committee, and it has now come down for us to consider. Therefore, I do not think that any case can be made for saying that the Bill, which, after all, is a very short one, has not had adequate consideration.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) went on to say that the case for the bird keepers had never been properly put. If I may say so with great respect, if the best case of the bird keepers is the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put to us this evening, it is a pretty poor case, because the right hon. Gentleman devoted the whole burthen of his argument to attacking something which is not in the Bill at all. I took down his actual words. He said:
If this Bill be passed, it will be impossible to keep any of the birds mentioned in the Schedule as a pet.
That is untrue.

Major HILLS: I have been challenged. I said that if this Bill is passed it will be, in effect, impossible to keep any of the scheduled birds as a pet, and I went on to say that the keepers or would-be keepers of these birds could not catch them in the field or take them from the nest, but had to buy them. Therefore if the sale of these birds were forbidden, they would be effectively prevented from keeping any of the scheduled birds.

Mr. LEWIS: I am within the recollection of the House, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting it to the House in a very different way from the way in which he put it before. In any ease, he is still wrong in saying that it would, in fact, be impossible to keep these birds. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any village lad from getting a bird, retaining it and keeping it as a pet, and, if he be skilled enough, breeding from it, and, if he is successful, selling the produce of that breeding. All the Bill does is to prevent the making of a profit out of the catching of the wild bird. There is nothing whatever to prevent the amateur fancier from catching birds, keeping them, breeding from them, and, if he likes, selling the young. That is an important point, because there are many of us who support this Bill who would not support a Bill which sought to prohibit the keeping of wild birds and animals in captivity.
I recognise that the very greatest benefits have been conferred upon mankind in the past through past generations which have kept wild birds and animals in captivity. If we go far enough back, if someone had not kept wild cattle in captivity, milk would not have been an article of food to-day. If someone had not kept wild jungle fowl in captivity eggs would not be in our diet to-day. Therefore, while supporting the Bill, I should not be prepared to support the imaginary Bill of which the right hon. Gentleman has been talking which would prohibit the keeping in captivity of birds or animals. As far as the Bill is concerned, there is nothing to prevent zoological societies and private persons from keeping the birds referred to in captivity. The Bill seeks to prohibit the trading in wild birds, because it is found as a fact that this trading involves a great deal of cruelty and loss of life as far as these birds are concerned. In the
opinion of those of us who support the Bill, the cruelty and loss of life is out of all proportion to the benefits conferred.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will apply his mind to the point that at these shows it is a frequent occurrence for bird fanciers to sell their birds, and, apart from the shows, to buy and sell them by private arrangement? Is it suggested that there is any cruelty in that?

Mr. LEWIS: No, Sir. We say that those birds at the show are only a very small percentage of the wild birds that are caught in order that those birds may be ultimately shown. That is a large part of our case. There is so much destruction of life for so small a percentage of the wild birds sold. There is so small a percentage of the wild birds caught that live for any length of time in captivity. The hon. Member made a point about his dog. He said that he kept his dog in captivity. The true parallel in the case of his dog is not the case of the wild bird caught but of the bird bred in captivity, just as his dog was bred. I would point out that the Bill specifically lays it down that if a bird is bred in captivity it may be sold, exactly as the hon. Member's dog may be sold.
The hon. Member also made a point about boys going bird nesting, and he said—I think I heard him correctly—that he knew of cases where boys caught linnets, with the object of selling them. He suggested that we are making criminals of those boys if we pass this Bill. If it comes to that, they are criminals already. Does the hon. Member not know that under the existing law it is forbidden to take a nesting linnet for any purpose, for sale or any other purpose. Therefore, when the hon. Member tries to make a case by saying that we shall make these lads criminals by passing this Bill, he forgets that they are, to use his own words, criminals already.

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not think they should be.

Mr. LEWIS: That is another matter. They will not be made criminals by our passing this Bill. The Bill, one might say broadly, is desirable not only on these humanitarian grounds but for utilitarian reasons. Many of the species referred to have a very real value to the agriculturist and the horticulturist, and it is in their interest that the numbers of these birds
should not be reduced. The Bill does not interfere with scientific study. It does not interfere with the interests of agriculture and horticulture. It does not interfere with the pleasure that any amateur may get, be he poor or be he rich, by catching and keeping a wild bird, but it prohibits the making of profit out of the indiscriminate destruction of one of the loveliest creatures of our countryside. My right hon. Friend speaks of class legislation. Does he mean that if you take a walk in the country it is only the rich man who gets any pleasure out of watching wild birds? I think my right hon. Friend pays a very poor compliment to those whom he seeks to defend. I hope the House will pass the Bill.

8.29 p.m.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I should be very reluctant to rise to deal with a subject of which I have very little personal knowledge but for the fact that I was unexpectedly charged, in the absence of a number of other hon. Members, with the responsibility of presenting to this House a petition, signed by 59,000 persons, against the Bill. The grounds of that petition have been so amply covered by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) that I have some hesitation in carrying on the discussion much longer, but there are two or three points which I think have not been adequately dealt with. In the first place, the opponents of the Bill believe, I think rightly, that it will place an undue burden upon the police, who are already, at all events in countryside districts, under-manned and over-worked. They believe that the result of the Bill will be to drive the traffic underground and to increase illicit traffic, whereas if the views put forward in another place as to licensing dealers and licensing trappers had been pursued further it might have been possible to confer a very great benefit upon birds as a whole. I am an internationalist on this question, and my sympathy extends to foreign birds as well as the birds of our own nationality. I feel that the Bill might be greatly improved by providing more amply for the protection of all the birds which are destined to be sold or handled.
I hope the House do not think that those who oppose this Bill are less humane than those who support it. Every
man who keeps a bird in a cage is a lover of birds and brings up his family in the same belief. The vast majority of men who keep birds in cages, especially British birds, are working men, working men of a type whose independence of convention is such that they do not wear a white collar to keep their necks warm; working men who really care for animals and whose principal hobby it always has been—as I can testify from my early life in Lancashire—to keep birds and to care for them. Every house almost, in my recollection, used to have a bird, and those birds used to live very much longer, I believe, than the same species of bird in its natural surroundings. I do not think that it will be possible if this Bill passes for people much longer to keep British birds, in fact they will disappear and we shall be forced to harbour alien birds exclusively in our midst. I do not wish to import any flavour of tariff reform into this question, but it does seem a little hard that we should restrict all our favours to British birds and have nothing whatever to say about foreign birds.
There is a great deal of affection shown for birds, and I think bird-keeping is a thoroughly healthy hobby. I can confirm all that has been said by previous speakers as to the moral effect of bird-keeping, whether upon aged spinsters or upon miners. It is one of the most humane of hobbies. The trapper has been subjected to a good deal of abuse. One hon. Member said that it had been proved that only 10 per cent. of the captured birds survived. I question whether that has been proved. It was alleged, but the evidence was not in any way conclusive.

Sir R. GOWER: The evidence was not disputed.

Sir A. WILSON: It was perhaps accepted in that place, but it has been stated very freely elsewhere that no trapper could possibly carry on his vocation if he lost 90 per cent. of the birds. We had a moving reference to what goes on at Club Row. Al] that I can say is that the existing law is adequate to deal with such abominations. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is not backward, to my knowledge, in instituting prosecutions in any such cases and there is no petitioner against the Bill who would not heartily
support the society in wiping out such abuses. We believe that complete prohibition of the traffic is not the way, but that the best way is by a system of licensing, education and control. Has the progress of humanity towards wild birds been so slow in the past few decades that it is necessary for us to make this great step forward of complete prohibition. In this matter as in others, is not the slow process of licensing, control and education, seasoned by occasional prosecution, better calculated to promote the interests of humanity? I speak with all diffidence as to the probable results of the Bill. It is supported by persons for whom I have the greatest respect, but my own predilections and my experience of my young days in Lancashire, lead me to think that it will, in fact, do injustice to men and women who keep British birds by making them practically unobtainable. I have received during the past week, ever since I carried that large bundle to the Table of the House, letters from various sources, including one from a country vicar in Lincolnshire. I will venture to read one extract. Of the treatment of birds he says that:
There has been an immense improvement of late years. I have never yet found anything but tenderness for wild birds, where even one cage bird was kept. All keepers of caged birds, from the poor man in the town who never hears the song of a bird save that of his little captive, to the rich man, or the fortunate country dweller who can have large roomy aviaries, will tell you that their birds are quick to recognise their keepers and rarely fail to develop a real affection for them. Do not stop a humanising and fascinating pursuit. Deal with the dealers as you will, and standardise your cages.
He is only one of a number of persons who have no conceivable trade interest, who do not attempt to deal with the financial or moral issue, but who believe in the humanising effect of the keeping of birds in general and British birds in particular. There are two other points I want to raise. The first is that there are no less than 780 registered cage bird societies in this country, with a membership ranging from a few dozen to several thousand members. They are all interested, and I cannot feel sure that their interests were adequately represented in another place or that they have been properly considered by those in charge of the Bill. Their only recourse was to a petition.
There is one minor point. There are many, particularly working men, who have made it their life's hobby to make experiments in the hybridisation of British birds. They have to get their specimens from dealers. They have to make their experiments during a period of years. It is a humane pursuit. Is it reasonable for us, in haste, to put a complete end to the sale of birds or the catching of birds when one sparrow hawk will probably kill 3,000 birds in a year and when frost and snow will kill hundreds and thousands in a day or two. Birds in cages live much longer than those in the countryside. I support the rejection of the Bill.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am opposing the Bill, in the first place because it comes from the House of Lords. This Bill is a proof that they have no right to exist. Here again they are interfering in a very serious manner with the everyday life of the working classes. They have no knowledge of what they are doing. This is essentially a working-class hobby. It is only the working classes which are affected by this Bill, and the Lords are interfering with the working classes about whom they know nothing. If they did they would not interfere. I could understand perfectly well if they had come along and said that the 12th of August was to be the last 12th of August, that there was to be no more killing of deer, no more going to Scotland to shoot down deer. But here they are interfering with a working-class hobby; and it is a serious business to begin to legislate with regard to hobbies because you have no guarantee what hobby will take the place of the hobby you are displacing. There is nothing surer than that man must have some outlet, and the outlet for many thousands of working classes in this country is the keeping of birds. In my constituency I have hundreds of folk who keep birds and they are just as kindly disposed people as Lord Buckmaster, who is responsible for introducing this Bill. They have sent me a petition and asked me to do what I can to see that it does not become an Act of Parliament. What do they say?
In Lord Buckmaster's own words, 'this Bill is based on two propositions, first, that the snaring and keeping of wild birds is cruel, second, that it can and ought to be stopped.' We repudiate the charges of cruelty. On the contrary, we keep British
birds, as also other pets, purely from the motive of kindness. Bird keeping is practised by all sorts and conditions of people, the working man who keeps a linnet for its song; my lady, who keeps a bullfinch for its confiding nature, the business man who keeps a suburban garden aviary, the fancier who keeps a young goldfinch for crossing with his canary. None of these would achieve their object if any form of cruelty was practised. It is not a money-making hobby. The prize money at the show is so paltry as to dispose of any suggestion of cruelty for gain. Professional bird catching is highly skilled; the man must be well versed in weather lore, birds ways, bird keeping and such like before he can earn a living. Out of some 500 birds on the British list less than 20 of the varieties are wanted by him. Further, his birds must be marketed in good condition, and as his birds represent cash, cruelty would mean a high death rate and that in turn would mean definite financial loss.
Restraint is admitted, but that applies to every household pet, be it dog, cat or other animal. Every horse has to he broken in. Cruelty is quite a different matter. Only the very prejudiced would believe that blinding birds deliberately is practised. Like the assertion that the kingfisher and swallow are regularly caged, it is not true. We believe the existing wild bird laws to be quite adequate. It should he remembered that the Act of 1925 prohibits the use of bird lime and prohibits the keeping of birds in too small cages. Why not, as an Amendment to Lord Buckmaster's Bill, license bird catchers and bird dealers and prohibit all street trading. The granting of a licence would ensure that it would only he issued to persons possessing the necessary qualifications.
The passing of this Bill into law would result in unemployment to thousands—dealers cage-makers, seed merchants, and other allied trades, among whom are quite a number of disabled men, who would be all affected.
That document is signed by over 100 individuals in my constituency who keep birds. Upon their behalf and on the broad issue at stake, that is the doing away with a kindly, commonplace, working-class hobby, I shall oppose the Bill.

8.47 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: Certainly the most moving speeches we have heard on the Bill arc for its rejection. I do not ally myself with those hon. Members, but I am certainly not quite happy about certain points in the Bill. In the first place I do not know quite why this Bill is being discussed at all now. It seems suddenly to have emerged out of a bunch of Bills which would automatically die next Friday, to a position of honour, with the backing of the Government. I do not
know why, and I seem to be the only person who does not know why. This Bill has given the impression throughout the country that it is going to stop a tremendous lot of cruelty to birds, and yet, after having sat here and listened to the actual instances of cruelty cited, I am of the opinion that all of them could have been dealt with by existing laws. I am therefore rather puzzled as to the necessity for the Bill.
As to the famous Club Row, my own experience and the experience of friends who have been there lately is that most, of the types of cases which have been mentioned to bolster up the Bill exist no longer. No longer are birds put into paper bags. The police are keenly on the look-out to stop any case of cruelty. The case has been cited of a thrush being put into a small cardboard box, which was thrust into a man's pocket. It must have been a very isolated case, for what man would buy a bird at a fancy price and immediately proceed to kill it rather than cherish it? I do not think that that was a fair instance to give to the House. Then listen to the "Times." The "Times" nowadays seems to be very unilateral in everything it does. It mentioned that this Bill was taken up by the Government, and proceeded:
Now it is taken up by the Government its progress through the House of Commons is no longer likely to he blocked by Members who seem to believe that wild birds can really be happy in cages.
I have never heard a more unfair statement. I did not block the Bill, so that there is no skin taken off my nose, and I do not care what the "Times" says. But I do keep wild birds in a cage. The "Times" bird expert may be surprised to know that from the time I get up to the time I go to bed the door of the cage is open and the birds can fly about if they wish. One was taken by a hawk in the summer, but the rest survived, and they never dream of leaving the cage. So that there is really not any captivity there at all.
I have intervened to say that I speak not merely for myself but for many men in my constituency. There is a thing known as the Battersea Working Men's Institute, and one of the most important sections there is the bird-lovers' section. Its official name is the Bird Fanciers; bird fanciers and bird lovers go together. I defy anyone who is back-
ing this Bill to say that there has been a single case of cruelty brought against any member of the Institute. A similar remark probably applies to working men throughout the country. As a rule bird fanciers are working people who keep one or two or perhaps more birds. Those birds are not only their pets, but their friends also.

8.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I think we have rather lost sight of the object of the Bill. We have heard a great deal about cruelty to birds by bird fanciers. The cruelty to the bird is not by the bird fancier or the bird lover, but the cruelty is in shutting up a wild bird in a cage. Anyone who lives in the country, as I have lived all my life, anyone who loves birds, who watches them throughout the year, listens to their song in the early Spring and watches their joy in the mating season, must feel that a wild bird caught by birdlime or in a net and placed in a cage, however much the owner may like it, cannot be anything but a miserable captive. No man confined to prison for life can suffer anything like what is suffered by a bird confined to a cage. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] I know for the simple reason that I have not wings and a bird has. A man can use his legs and arms, but a bird shut up in a cage cannot use its wings, the one thing that God has given it, and enjoy the life for which God meant it. The man who confines a bird in a cage because he says he is a bird fancier or bird lover is committing an act of cruelty due mainly to a want of imagination. No man—I do not care who he is—who has the least imagination could possibly like to see a linnet or a goldfinch hopping up to its perch and down again, and pecking the wires of a cage all day long so long as it lives.
One of the best testimonies as to the truth of what I say is the fact that the bird fancier always covers up bird with a black cloth so that it shall not see the light of God. It is only in the day-time that he allows the wretched bird to jump up and down and hit its wings against the cage in the vain hope of once more getting its freedom. If we proposed, even for a short time, to confine to prison a man who had done no wrong, the law of habeas corpus would operate. No one can confine a man to prison in this
country until he has been judged and condemned. When we think so highly of the freedom of human beings, why should we deny freedom to unfortunate birds?
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) made a very eloquent plea for the bird-financiers in his district. He made a statement to the effect that certain birds were particularly suited to cage life. If there are birds suited to cage life, then surely those birds could be bred in the cage and the hon. Member's bird-fanciers can thus have their caged birds, because there would be no cruelty if the birds had never known anything else except life in a cage. [An HON. MEMBER: "They must be caught first!"] Yes, but once they are caught you can go on breeding them, and there are thousands of birds in captivity to-day. Why not breed from them? There is nothing in the Bill to prevent bird-fanciers having cage-bred birds. All the Bill does is to prevent people catching wild birds and confining them in cages for purposes of profit. The Bill seeks to prevent the wholesale caging of birds for the purposes of profit, and that is all.
Perhaps I ought not to be speaking on this subject. I myself may be charged with cruelty because I am a sportsman. I shoot wild birds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] But I could not help thinking when I heard an hon. Member's statement about birds dying in the snow, that it was much happier for the bird to be killed or to perish in the snow, than that it should be confined in the prison of a cage for the rest of its natural life. We ought to realise the ghastly suffering of a bird which is caught wild and is then kept until it dies in a little cage, never able to use the God-given gift of its wings. For those reasons I support the Bill.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: If there was not already good reason why the House should divide against this Bill I think a reason has been supplied by the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. and gallant Member sought to give the impression that we had got away in this Debate from the real object of the Bill. That object, in his opinion, is to prevent the caging of wild birds. He sought to impress his argument on the House by drawing a picture of a bird in a small cage
with only sufficient liberty to jump backwards and forwards between a little perch and the bottom of the cage. If the object of the Bill were as he described it, I believe that every hon. Member would support it. But that is not the object of the Bill at all. I do not imagine that the hon. and gallant Member can have read the Bill. Its object is to prevent the sale or the offering for sale of any wild bird, and it appears to me that we require some more clear definition than we have had up to the present of what is a wild bird and what constitutes an offer for sale.
If a working man can breed birds in cages for the purposes of sale, when does a bird begin to be a wild bird and when does it cease to be a wild bird? The hon. and gallant Member suggests that it ceases to be a wild bird once it is put to breeding purposes and that it then becomes a domestic bird. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that. A sparrow is a sparrow whatever colour you put on its wings, and a hawk is a hawk whatever else you like to call it. What is to be the legal position under the Bill in regard to a transaction between an ordinary working-man who has bred a bullfinch, and the person who wants to purchase that bullfinch from him, if the bird is the result of a pairing which has taken place five years previously in that man's own cages? I am convinced that the Bill will destroy a very valuable and a moral industry. I do not agree with the practices of some professional dealers in birds. I have seen some of the results of their work, but the average working-man is just as much opposed to that form of trading in birds as the promoters of the Bill. If the average working-man saw some of the things for which those people are responsible he would be the first to take off his jacket in defence of the bird.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) in criticising the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) said he did not think that the hon. Member would suggest that birds and the beauty of birds were not the poor man's pleasure as well as the rich man's pleasure. This Bill is going to make a great difference in that respect. The rich man can enjoy the pleasure of a huge aviary. Who is to say that the aviary does not constitute as great a
menace to the wild bird as the six-inch cage? I have heard members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declare that the keeping of wild birds in aviaries did not constitute cruelty to an extent commensurate with the cruelty of keeping birds in cages. The working-man has neither the space nor the cash to enable him to keep an aviary such as a rich man can afford to keep. If the rich man is to be allowed to keep wild birds in his aviary and breed from them, whether for sale or exchange or any other purpose, I am convinced that this Bill, whatever its intention may be, will be interpreted as the worst piece of class legislation that has passed through the House for a considerable time.
If the Government want to do something to protect wild birds from cruelty they should first of all withdraw the peregrine falcon from the list of protected birds. There is no bird responsible for such wicked cruelty to both wild and domesticated species as the bird of the peregrine or hawk falcon type. If the Government are genuine in their desire to protect wild birds they will take it out of the list of protected birds. Not only the ordinary bird fancier but every person with any feeling for birds as a whole would welcome such action. The Bill does not say how far the working-man bird fancier can go. If I keep certain of the wild birds included in this Schedule and my neighbour keeps other scheduled birds of a different type, and if I tell him that I propose to develop the breed of a particular type of bird and offer to exchange them, on terms, for some of his, then, however, the law may choose to interpret that exchange, it is a bargain between two persons and it has all the elements of buying and selling. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] As I conceive it that would be barter. I always thought that barter was the exchange of services, and I cannot see how you can have an exchange of services without the element of buying and selling. Whether or not you arrange a figure beforehand is a matter of the actual contract. This Bill does not say to the working man that he can exchange birds without being regarded as a dealer in birds, or that he can sell his birds without being regarded as a dealer in birds. If it goes through as it is, I am convinced that it will create such a host of implications and complications as will place on the head of the average working man the idea that in
dealing with wild birds he is a criminal of the worst possible character. Finally, I would ask the Government whether they have taken into consideration the enormous injury and damage that the passage of this Bill might do to that great hemp industry of which we heard so much only a few months ago in this House.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I am afraid I cannot agree with some of my colleagues on this matter, though I do not suggest that there is any cruelty in the mind of anyone who is opposed to this Bill. My experience is that, like many other people, I have spent a lot of time watching birds, and when I see a bird like a skylark soaring up to the heavens and giving forth its song, it crosses my mind that if that bird has to be caged and taken out of its natural element, there is something wrong with nature. It is because that kind of thought has entered my mind that, in spite of what has been said in opposition to the Bill, I feel that I could not vote against it after the experience that I have had. I will put it to those hon. Members who are opposing the Bill that they should have some regard to what would be our own position if we happened to be kept out of our natural element. What would our feelings be? I am confident that if that kind of thing could happen to us, very few of us would argue against the passage of a Bill of this kind.
I take it that the traffic in these birds has been such as to draw attention to it, that the growing tendency to capture these birds and to create a sale for them is the reason why this Bill has been brought forward; and if that be so, if the attention of the Members of the House of Commons has been drawn to that traffic, it is for us to take some action to prevent it. The argument against that is that many of the working-class have made a hobby of it, and so they have. I remember in my early days going to a lark-singing contest, to see how it took place, and this is what I saw. Every bird was well looked after, and all possible care was given to it, but just before the contest started every cage was covered over with a cloth. Each bird was in a kind of prison as a result, and when the cloth was taken from it and the gaslight shone on the bird, then it began to sing. It had been suppressed for hours at a time, so that, at the first chance it got, it burst forth into song.
That kind of thing is not natural. There was no cruelty on the part of the men. As I say, every care was bestowed on each bird, yet there was cruelty in so far that the bird was not allowed to have what nature had intended, namely, the freedom of singing whenever it desired. A bird, of course, likes its natural element and likes soaring up into the heavens, but these birds could not rise more than a few inches and had to do it on the perch in the cage. I do not think anyone will hold with that. I believe that everybody with humane feelings wants to do all that is proper by both animals and birds, and, having to weigh the two sides up and to give a vote on this matter, I feel that I must support the Bill, even though it has come from the House of Lords. In general, I would like to oppose the House of Lords, but in a matter like this I must give my vote in favour of the Bill, because of what I have seen in my walks along the countryside.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. BUCHAN: I may be allowed to sum up very briefly what seem to me to be the justification and the purpose of this Measure, and incidentally to answer some criticisms which have been made on it. The purpose is to put an end to specific kinds of cruelty, cruelty which I readily admit is very often unwitting and unwilling. Frankly, I agree with a recent speaker that it is cruel to cage any wild bird, because you are thereby depriving the bird of the exercise of the free and natural function of flight. But I readily admit that that view is extreme and could not be put into effect, because the keeping of cage birds as a practice has so woven itself into our life, and, moreover, there are many foreign birds which are specially suited to cage life and can live there for a long time. For example, the life of a canary in a cage is far longer than the life of a linnet or a chaffinch. But I believe there is a very real cruelty in the caging of British wild birds. Apart from atrocious practices like the blinding of decoy birds, which still happens, although it is illegal, and the covering of cages with black cloth to make birds sing, there is cruelty, to my mind, inevitable cruelty, in the process which accustoms a bird to caged life.
If hon. Members will look at the report of the Select Committee, they will find
that some of the witnesses put the mortality among birds caged either at the time of capture or within three weeks at 50 per cent. That, no doubt, is an extreme figure, but even the opponents of the Bill put the mortality at 10 per cent. for linnets, and for goldfinches at 20 per cent. I would specially refer to the evidence of the secretary of the Bird Keepers' Defence Association, and of the editor of the "Cage Bird Fancier," both humane and candid men, who admitted that a man who caged a birl had to buy his experience at the bird's expense, and that two birds died before a third could live; and I need not point out to hon. Members that before death there must have been prolonged suffering.
The business of capturing wild birds, to anyone who has seen it, is a pretty sordid affair, and there can be no question of the cruelty and squalor of the ordinary way of selling birds, either in the East End markets or in any one of the open-air markets in our country towns. That has been so much repeated in the Press and so admirably brought out in the Committee that I need not refer to it. There is one further argument for this Bill which I should like to put to the House, namely, the preservation of the amenities of the English countryside. One of the happiest features of our life to-day is the way in which rural England has been discovered by the town dweller, and the town dweller's desire to protect its beauties in his own interests. Now a principal charm of the country is the presence of wild birds, but if we are not careful we shall drive away the many beautiful and interesting birds from all accessible places—and the large part of our country to-day is accessible. I know a common near a populous town which in my recollection was full of goldfinches. There is not a goldfinch to be seen there to-day; the bird catcher has been there. The one argument against the Bill was put very forcibly by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Undoubtedly it does interfere with the poor man's hobby. It will work a certain amount of minor hardships to perfectly honest and humane bird fanciers. My only answer to this, I fear, is that you cannot help creating a certain amount of undeserved hard-
ship if you are to remedy an abuse. It is a bad law which provides for every hard case. If you are to have a good law there must be some hard cases. But there is one undoubted fact which mitigates the hardship. The keeping of British wild birds in cages is becoming much less popular. Twenty or 30 years ago in the Crystal Palace Cage Bird Exhibition nearly 25 per cent. Of the birds exhibited were British. At the last exhibition 4,000 odd birds were shown. Of these, only 500 were British wild birds in the Schedule; that is to say, to-day only about 10 to 15 per cent. of the cage birds kept in this country would be affected by this Bill. If you view the case of the very poor, I would point out that you can buy a cage-bred canary for 2s. or 3s., which is practically as cheap as any British bird. I would appeal on behalf of this Bill as an efficient Measure to deal with a form of abominable cruelty to the most wonderful of living creatures, with a minimum interference with a hobby which I gladly admit to be in most cases innocent and commendable.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I rise with some reluctance, and I do so because I feel somewhat uneasy about this Bill. I am one of those who are against cruelty in any shape or form, as I hope all are. I want to prevent cruelty, and I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that there must be a good deal of cruelty in the capture and sale of birds. I have read those articles which have been sent to me about the conditions in Club Row, and anything that can be done to stop this wholesale capture of birds ought to be done. I also think that the conditions under which these birds are sold are cruel in many cases. I am wondering whether a perfectly legitimate hobby cannot be preserved and cruelty stopped in the taking and selling of birds by regulation and licence. For example, I think it could be possible for a Bill to be brought in providing that all dealers in birds should be subject to licence and inspection, so that no cruelty could be involved; and also that regulations could be passed to stop the depredations caused by the wholesale capture of birds. So far as I can make out, this Bill says that anybody who catches even one wild bird in his own garden—he may capture
it because it has a broken wing—and who sells the bird, will be liable to a penalty.
I agree that it is cruel to keep in captivity certain English birds which appear in the Schedule—birds like the kingfisher, for example. I do not suppose anybody has ever kept that bird in captivity. I agree also that it is cruel to keep larks in captivity, because it is the nature of that bird to ascend. I am told that in order to prevent them from ascending and injuring themselves, they are kept in flat cages two or three inches deep. That is very cruel, and should be stopped. I accept that it is cruel to keep such birds in cages, but I am not at all sure that that applies to many of the birds in the Schedule. I have been round my constituency to see people who keep birds. They do not always keep them in small cages; many of them keep them in aviaries where the birds can fly about for several yards. The owners get a great deal of enjoyment from what is quite a legitimate pleasure. They study the habits of the birds, they are very fond of them, and the birds are their pets. In many cases when they open the cages the birds come out and stand on their hands. I have always believed that every wild animal, if the human species of animal treat them properly, will become very friendly. I have been told that when a mariner has landed on an island in the South Seas where no human being has ever been, all the animals and birds are extremely friendly, and not afraid. It is not a question of taming them; it is a question of overcoming their natural fear of man.
We have been told one or two things that seem to be exaggerated. We are told that it is cruel to put a black cloth on a cage in order that when the cloth is removed the bird will sing. The bird always does that when it sees the light. I have a canary at home which sings during the day, and at night we have to put a black cloth over the cage in order to make it go to sleep, because when people put on the electric light the wretched bird starts to sing again. It is perfectly happy. We call it "George." The idea that people should not put on a cloth to make a bird go to sleep so that when the light comes it begins to sing is absurd. There is nothing cruel about that at all. This is a very real pleasure
indulged in by many people. Not only is it a pleasure, but the birds themselves are happy. The hon. Member said that they have been "deprived of the supreme natural function of flight." That is rather a sentimental way of looking at it. Why should he call flight the supreme natural function? A bird has other functions which we have, in which it takes great delight—bringing up children, and so on. If it is cruel to deprive a wild bird of that function, it is equally cruel to deprive a canary of it, for it also has wings and wishes to fly.
I should like to see this Bill recommitted. I think it is far too drastic as it stands at present. I say this as a lover of birds and of the wild life of the country. I should like to see a Bill which says that certain birds should never be kept in any circumstances, and I should like to have regulations made about the selling and capture of birds, and a licence. I think a Bill of that sort would pass this House unanimously. This Bill, however, is far too drastic, and although its passing would prevent a certain amount of cruelty, another Bill ought to be brought in, and I cannot support this.

9.29 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I do not wish unduly to prolong the Debate, but I wish to suggest to the House a reason why it should not support the Bill. It is very easy for the sentiment of the super-sensitive to run away on matters of this kind. I want to ask those who are vehemently supporting this Bill whether they think it cruel and propose to take any steps to stop the keeping of ordinary barn-door fowls in wire cages in the backyard. Do they think it wrong to eat ducks and geese, and do they want to stop the exposure of ducks and geese in the Christmas market? Is it cruel to keep a horse in the stable and harness him in a cart for the service of man? Is it cruel to keep a cow in a shed for the purpose of producing milk? We must keep a sense of proportion. I support the hon. Member who suggested that this Bill be recommitted, so that it may be dealt with as a common-sense Measure.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is too late for the hon. Member to talk about the recommitting of the Bill. We have
got beyond that stage, and are now on the Third Reading.

Sir J. NALL: On that point, if it is too late to recommit the Bill in its present form, a new Session is to commence at the beginning of next week. It would be quite easy to let this Bill go, and to reintroduce it in a more sensible form. I, for one, and I expect also the whole House, would support a Measure which would enact that, where it is proved that a particular kind of bird is disappearing, steps be taken to stop that process. But a Bill of this kind, which interferes with the perfectly innocent and harmless amusement of a vast number of quite reasonable people, seems to me to be inflicting a hardship on masses of persons, and if it were in force justice would not be done.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The House wishes to be kind to birds, but in doing that we ought not to overlook the consequences which may follow on the action which we are taking. In abolishing one cruelty it is often necessary to watch that you do not establish something equally bad in its place. I have constantly observed this happening. Hon. Members can make out a perfectly sensible case for something being wrong. My view of mankind is that man is constantly doing wrong things. Every man, by nature, seems to have a method and a way of doing things that are wrong. This House requires to be constantly safeguarded against the danger that in stopping one wrong they may substitute something even worse. There is no answer to the statement that cruelty is done to birds. There are cruelties to birds, and I believe that cruelties are also practised in the caging of wild animals. But the proposition is a two-fold one. When you abolish this evil, do you not run the risk of substituting something else?
Some people argue in the same way about moving pictures, when they see wrong and unedifying ones. But shut the pictures, and those who enjoy them will only substitute something else. If you stop these decent men and their wives and families from pursuing this perfectly innocent hobby, you take the chance that they will substitute for it something very
much worse. Anything that keeps men sober and makes them good husbands to their wives is not altogether a bad habit. My view of these men is that they are following a perfectly innocent pleasure and are sober, decent men in their ordinary, everyday lives. Stop them from doing it, and you do not make them good; all you do is to drive them to some other form of amusement that may import bitter cruelty into what they do.
Whether you like it or do not like it, certain men will defy the law—large numbers of them. You are faced with two propositions. First of all, you must give a certain number of people the power—almost the bureaucratic power—of seeing that the law is carried out. Before this Bill can be effectively administered, it is almost necessary to have the power of entry into homes. If the cruelty can be established, that is where it takes place. Before it gives such a measure of power to the people who would exercise it, this House ought to observe great care in what it is doing. I am one of those who believe that in the normal functions of human life mankind ought to receive as much liberty as possible. It is necessary to take care that in abolishing this practice you do not set up in power people who may inflict greater hardship by their interference than does the practice itself.
The first Clause provides for fines for taking and selling birds. Do not forget that these people whom you are fining are poor people. The fine will be paid, and you are stopping one cruelty by inflicting on them a, cruelty that may be as severe as that which they are inflicting on the bird. Taking it as a whole, the Bill is one which should make us pause, and pause long. While I agree, and no one could deny, that there has been cruelty, and I myself dislike the keeping of birds or any animal in captivity, and have never done it myself, I do say that the House should try to keep a proper perspective in regard to other people not like us. If we prevent these other people from doing this we may cause them to substitute something worse in its place.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 14.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — STANDING ORDERS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Public Business as set out in the Schedule attached hereto be approved by this House."

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Standing Order No. 1 (2), line 3, leave out from "unless," to "exempted," in line 6, and insert "proceedings."

Standing Order No. 1 (3), line 3, leave out "and at four of the clock on Fridays."

Standing Order No. 1 (4), line 4, leave out "the speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker"; after "or," insert "the."

Standing Order No. 1 (5), line 2, leave out "and four respectively."

Standing Order No. 1 (5), line 3, after "business, "insert" except proceedings exempted as hereinafter provided from the operation of this standing order."

Standing Order No. 1, after paragraph (5), insert paragraph:

(6) The proceedings on a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament (including proceedings on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill), or proceedings in pursuance of any standing order, the proceedings on the reports of the Committee of Ways and means and of Committees authorising the expenditure of public money, except the Committee of Supply, may be entered upon after eleven of the clock though opposed, shall not be interrupted under the provisions of this standing order, and if under discussion when the business is postponed under the provisions of any standing order may be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business.

Standing Order No. 1 (7), line 10, leave out "o'clock, "and insert" of the clock."

Standing Order No. 1 (7), line 13, after "postponed, "insert" under the provisions of any standing order."

Standing Order No. 1 (8), line 6, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 1, leave out paragraph (9).

Standing Order No. 2, line 2, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 2, line 3, after "motions," insert "Standing Order No. 1 (3) (4) and (7) shall apply to the Sittings on Fridays with the substitution of four of the clock for eleven of the clock"; after "and," insert "the House."

Standing Order No. 2, line 4, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 2, line 5, after "adjourned," add "After the business under consideration at four has been disposed of, no opposed business shall be taken."

Standing Order No. 3, leave out "3. When such business has been disposed of," and insert "At the conclusion of business."

Standing Order No. 3, line 2, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 4 (1) (c), line 11, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 4 (1) (d), line 6, leave out "giving," and insert "ballots for."

Leave out Standing Order No. 5.

Standing Order No. 6, line 7, after "report," insert "not already entered upon."

Standing Order No. 7, line 1, leave out from "notice," to end of Standing Order, and add "of motion for a date on which notices are entitled to precedence shall be given for any date beyond the second day on which such notices are entitled to precedence."

Leave out Standing Order No. 7A.

Standing Order No. 8 (1), line 2, leave out from "Friday," to end of Standing Order, and add,—

(2) No. private business shall be considered after three of the clock upon Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and any business not reached shall stand over to the next sitting.

(3) Any private business entered upon and not disposed of by the time referred to in paragraph (2) of this order, shall be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.

(4) Private business, if so directed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, shall be taken at half-past seven of the clock on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, or as soon thereafter as any Motion for the Adjournment of the House standing over has been disposed of, provided that such business shall be distributed as near as may be proportionately between the sittings on which Government business has precedence and the other sittings.

(5) No opposed private business other than that under consideration shall be taken after half-past nine of the clock."

Standing Order No. 9 (1), line 4, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 9 (5), line 8, after "has," insert "before questions are disposed of."

Standing Order No. 13, line 4, leave out from "of," to the end of the Standing Order, and add "arranging government business, whether orders of the day or notices of motions, in such order as they may think fit, subject to precedence of private members' business on those days on which such business has precedence."

Standing Order No. 14, line 1, leave out "This House will, in future, appoint."

Standing Order No. 14, line 2, after "means," insert "shall be appointed by the House."

Standing Order No. 15, leave out paragraph (1).

Standing Order No. 15 (2), line 1, leave out "Not more than twenty days," and insert "Twenty days and no more (unless as hereinafter provided)."

Standing Order No. 15 (2), line 3, leave out "estimates for the Army," and after "Navy," insert "Army."

Standing Order No. 15 (2), line 4, leave out "force," and leave out "services," and after "civil," insert "estimates."

Standing Order No. 15 (6), line 3, leave out "sitting," and insert "day."

Standing Order No. 15 (6), line 6, leave out "at the close."

Standing Order No. 15 (6), line 6, leave out "sitting," and insert "day."

Standing Order No. 15 (6), line 8, leave out "of Committees."

Standing Order No. 15 (6), line 8, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 15 (7), line 6, leave out "service."

Standing Order No. 15 (7), line 11, leave out "estimates for the."

Standing Order No. 15 (7), line 12, leave out "force," and after "departments," insert "estimates."

Standing Order No. 15 (8), line 7, leave out "service."

Standing Order No. 15 (8), line 12, leave out "estimates for the."

Standing Order No. 15 (8), line 13, leave out "force," and after "departments," insert "estimates."

Standing Order No. 16, line 2, leave out "shall," and insert "may."

Standing Order No. 16, line 2, leave out from "for," to "any," in line 4.

Standing Order No. 16, line 4, leave out "other."

Leave out Standing Order No. 17 and insert new Standing Order,—

Whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into committee Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, and the House shill thereupon resolve itself into such committee, unless notice of an instruction to such committee has been given (when such instruction shall be first disposed of), or unless on first going into committee of supply on the Navy, Army, Air or Civil Estimates respectively, or on any vote of credit, an amendment be moved or question raised relating to the estimates proposed to be taken in supply.

Standing Order No. 18 (1), line 2, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 18 (1), line 3, leave out "of a committee of the whole House."

Standing Order No. 18 (1), line 10, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 18 (1), line 18, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 18 (5), line 5, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 18 (5), line 6, leave out "the Speaker's," and insert "Mr. Speaker's."

Standing Order No. 18 (5), line 7, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 21, line 2, leave out the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 22, line 3, leave out "of a Committee."

Standing Order No. 23, line 1, leave out from "Chairman," to "shall" in line 2.

Standing Order No. 24, leave out form the beginning of the Standing Order to "the," in line 2.

Standing Order No. 25, line 3, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 25, line 5, leave out "o'clock," and insert "of the clock."

Standing Order No. 26 (2), line 8, at the beginning, leave out "and also if a Clause be then," and insert "(3) When a Clause is."

Standing Order No. 26 (2), line 14, after "put," insert "(4)."

Standing Order No. 26 (3), line 2, leave out "the Speaker or," and insert "Mr. Speaker or in Committee."

Standing Order No. 27a, line 1, after "or," insert "in respect of."

Standing Order No, 28 (1), line 1, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker"; after "or" insert "the."

Standing Order No. 28 (2), line 4, leave out "nominate," and insert "announce the names of."

Leave out Standing Order No. 32.

Leave out Standing Order No. 33.

Standing Order No. 34, line 2, leave out "of the whole House."

Standing Order No. 35, line 2, after "postponed," insert "without Question put."

Standing Order No. 35, line 3, after "Clauses," insert "and Schedules, if any."

Standing Order No. 35, line 3, leave out "without Question put."

Leave out Standing Order No. 36.

Standing Order No. 41, line 2, leave out "may be proposed."

Standing Order No. 41, line 4, after "house" add "may be proposed."

Standing Order No. 46 (2), line 6, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 47 (1), line 1, at beginning, insert "Not more than."

Standing Order No. 47 (1), line 6, leave out from "order," to "On," in line 8.

Standing Order No. 47 (1), line 17, leave out "the," and insert "a."

Standing Order No. 47 (5), line 2, after "26," insert "(1) (2) (3) and (4)."

Standing Order No. 47 (5), line 6, leave out "Chairman of Ways and Means," and insert "chair."

Standing Order No. 47 (5), line 11, leave out "of a committee of the Whole House."

Standing Order No. 47 (5), at end, add "(6) All Standing Committees shall have leave to print and circulate with the votes the minutes of their proceedings and any amended clauses of bills committed to them."

Standing Order No. 48, line 5, leave out "to the classes of bills committed to such committees."

Standing Order No. 48, line 7, leave out "and to the qualifications of the members selected."

Standing Order No. 48, line 21, after "bill," insert "and in adding such members shall have regard to their qualifications."

Leave out Standing Order No. 49a.

Leave out Standing Order No. 51.

Standing Order No. 52, line 1, leave out "of a committee."

Standing Order No. 53, line 1, after "every," insert "such," and leave out from "report," to "shall," in line 2.

Standing Order No. 53, line 2, leave out "any."

Standing Order No. 53, line 3, leave out "being."

Standing Order No. 54, line 2, leave out "except while the House is at prayers."

Standing Order No. 54, line 3, after "sitting," insert "of the House."

Standing Order No. 54, line 4, at end, add "on any day on which the House has sat."

Leave out Standing Order No. 60, and insert new Standing Order:

The names of the members present each day at the sitting of any select committee, and in the event of any division taking place, the question proposed, the name of the proposer and the respective votes thereupon of the members present, shall be entered on the minutes of the proceedings of the committee, and such minutes of proceedings shall be reported to the House.

Leave out Standing Order No. 61, and insert new Standing Order:

The names of members present each day at the sitting of any select committee shall be entered on the minutes of evidence, if any.

Standing Order No. 64, line 4, leave out from the first "committees," to end of Standing Order.

Leave out Standing Order No. 65.

Standing Order No. 75, line 1, leave out "standing."

Standing Order No. 75, line 6, leave out "eleven," and insert "not more than fifteen."

Standing Order No. 75, at end, add "The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time."

Standing Order No. 77, line 5, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 79, line 3, after "referred" insert "without any question being put."

Standing Order No. 79, line 3, after "to," insert "a committee to be designated."

Standing Order No. 79, line 4, leave out "without any question being put."

Standing Order No. 81 (1), line 4, leave out "of the committee."

Standing Order No. 81 (2), line 4, leave out from "shall" to "be" in line 5.

Standing Order No. 81 (2), at end, add,—

"(3) Provided also that the Chairman of Ways and Means or Deputy-Chairman do take the chair as Deputy-Speaker, when requested so to do by Mr. Speaker, without any formal communication to the House; and that Mr. Speaker shall nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a panel of not more than five members to act as temporary chairmen of committees, when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means."

Standing Order No. 52, line 3, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 88, line 11, leave out from "sitting," to end of the Standing Order.

Standing Order No. 90, line 7, leave out "the Speaker," and insert "Mr. Speaker."

Standing Order No. 91, line 2, leave out from "house," to "take," in line 11, and insert "the Postmaster of the House or other persons appointed by the Postmaster-General shall attend daily (Sundays excepted) for the delivery and re-direction of all letters arriving in course of post and shall."

Standing Order No. 91, line 11, leave out "his," and insert "their."

Standing Order No. 92, line 1, leave out "officer," and insert "officers."

Standing Order No. 92, line 1, leave out "his," and insert "their."

Standing Order No. 92, line 3, leave out from "undelivered," to end of the Standing Order.

Leave out Standing Order No. 93.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

9.45 p.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I think that it is due to the House that I should say a few words in explanation of the appearance of this formidable list of Amendments on the Order Paper. I am glad to
see my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) here. I hope that he is now satisfied. The Amendments have been on the Paper for three days. They were upon it on Thursday morning, and that gave us a week-end in which to study the effects of the changes. I will say, having listened with some attention to the last Bill, that I can assure the House that there is nothing in these Amendments that will curb the liberty or clip the wings of any hon. Member.
The House will remember, especially all those who are interested in procedure, that a Select Committee upon procedure was appointed by the Labour Government in 1931. The Committee had not concluded their labours when the General Election came. The Committee were set up again by the present Government in March, 1932, and among the works that they have accomplished was the appointment of a small technical committee, nominated by Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of going through the Standing Orders to see if any had fallen into desuetude, whether any alterations in them could make them simpler and, in short, whether anything could be done to bring them more up-to-date. Mr. Speaker was good enough to nominate a Committee, which consisted of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich (Sir J. Ganzoni), the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood), Sir Horace Dawkins, the Clerk of the House, and the Chairman of Ways and Means, as chairman. Their terms of reference were:
To examine the Standing Orders relating to public business, and to make such suggestions as they may think fit for the removal of ambiguities, for the repeal of those Orders that are found to be obsolete, and for the amending of others to bring them into conformity with the present practice.
I am sure that the House is considerably indebted to the Committee for the thoroughness with which they have done their work. They presented a unanimous report to Mr. Speaker, and the extent of their work may he judged by the number of the Amendments on the Order Paper. The majority of the Amendments are of a drafting character. They entail mere verbal alteration. There are three alterations in procedure, not of considerable
importance. There are three definite suggestions as to alteration, and I will just mention them.
The House will remember that an alteration was made not long ago in the alteration of the time for private Member's Motions. One whole day was given, instead of two half days, and the Committee propose that Notices of Motions should not be given beyond the second Motion day instead of the fourth, they took the view as at present that it might well be that subjects chosen with shorter notice might be fresher, that the time would not be booked so far ahead, and in that way it might be more convenient for private Members. They have proposed a change by removing the provision that Supply shall be the first Order on Thursdays. The reason for that is that, on many occasions during the Session, if the Government take other business on a Thursday than Supply, a Motion has to be put down. The Motion, as a matter of fact, is very seldom divided upon, but the Committee thought it was unnecessary even that such a Motion should be put down. It has no effect at all upon Supply. It does not curtail Supply. The number of days that have to be given to Supply is fixed, and there is no alteration in that at all. It is open to the Government, as every hon. Member knows, to put down Supply on any day when they think fit. In the circumstances, the Committee think that it is unnecessary now to regard Thursday as a day sacrosanct to Supply necessitating a special Motion if any other Government business is to be taken.
The third point is quite a small one. It is a change. It is the omission of the words in the Standing Orders about the sittings of Committees
except while the House is at prayers.
This alteration of the wording merely conforms to what has, for some years now, been the practice of the House. In the process of revising and tidying up generally the Standing Orders, six of the existing Standing Orders have been combined with others. It is proposed to repeal five Standing Orders which are considered to be obsolete, and the general effect, if these Amendments are passed, will be that we shall have 93 Standing Orders in future, instead of 104.
I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is in charge of these Amendments. He is thoroughly familiar, not only from his position as Chairman of Ways and Means, but from having been Chairman of the Committee, as I have told the House, and he is familiar with the reasons in every case which induced the Committee to take the unanimous view which they did.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we raise no objection to these alterations? We think that they conduce to the benefit of the House. We recognise, of course, that they do not go very far. They are only clearing up the smaller ambiguities, and they leave out many drastic rearrangements of business of the House. In the short time that remains in this Session, these Amendments should be passed.

9.53 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: At the commencement of business to—day, I raised objection to taking these Orders. Since the Sitting has progressed, I have been able to satisfy myself that the facts are as my right hon. Friend has stated. The Amendments are principally drafting Amendments, and those which make changes in procedure are unimportant, and will be for the convenience of the House. Those relating to private Members' Motions are all for the convenience of the House, and revert, I think in fact, to an old custom. I am not going to raise any objection to the other Amendments, although I regard one regular fixed day for Supply as desirable, because it enables Members to know when Supply is going to be taken, and I am rather sorry to see this relaxation in the regularity of the procedure of the House. It is not important, and I think that the House might very well agree. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the House will excuse me for taking such an interest in these matters. I have been here a long time, and I am one of those who value the procedure, and I am rather alarmed when I see large changes proposed to be made. To-night I have nothing further to add.

9.55 p.m.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: On a point of Order. You put the question, Mr.
Deputy-Speaker, that these alterations to the Standing Orders be approved. Does that mean that they will not be put seriatim?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): That is so, but it will be open, of course, to any hon. Member to move an Amendment to the Schedule, and, if any such Amendment were agreed to, the amended Schedule would then become the Schedule attached to the Motion.

9.56 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hesitate to intervene on any question of the procedure of the House, but I hope I shall not be out of order in saying one word to-night. If I could induce any considerable number of hon. Members to divide against this Motion, I think I should do so; and I should do so as a protest against the Government introducing this Motion in advance of any decision as to the major recommendations of the Select Committee, or any decision going beyond those recommendations and representing the Government's own conclusion as to the future procedure of this House. The Motion has been recommended by the Lord President of the Council, by the hon. Gentleman who is leading the Opposition for the moment, and by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), on the ground that there is, after all, nothing in it at all; that, in other words, the House appointed a Select Committee to set its house in order, and that all that we are doing about it is to transfer the antimacassar from the armchair to the sofa. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council assures us that none of us are going to have our wings clipped—that nothing is changed. With reference to the previous Bill that was before the House, I picture him assuring the skylark in his cage that it is true that he is not going to be let loose, but in any case his cage is not going to be made smaller. There is a great feeling in this House and in the country that our procedure is antiquated—that the growing revolt against Parliamentary institutions throughout the world has only too much justification in the confinement of this House in all its procedure within ancient, archaeological survivals; and I cannot but protest that the Government should have asked us to
vote on this, the pettiest and the smallest of the recommendations of the Select Committee, before having introduced any more far-reaching Resolution.
I may not argue to-night the merits of the Report of the Select Committee, but I thought that the Report itself went far too short a way. I feel that we need some revision far more fundamental. But may we not consider at this moment what might be well said outside this House—that the House revises its procedure only in those respects which do not call for any marked degree of mental effort on the part of His Majesty's Government or of any Member of the House? We are content with the things that we can do with the minimum of thought. Rather than assent to this—quite unobjectionable in itself—proposal, if I could get any support I would divide the House against it, on the basis that we cannot consider any revision of the procedure of the House until we have really far-reaching proposals.

10.0 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I think that my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is wrong on two points. First of all, had he listened carefully to the Leader of the House, he would have heard him give the terms of reference to the Committee which has just sat under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Those are very narrow terms of reference. They do not deal with the question of reform of the procedure of the House at all, and there is nothing in the proposal now before the House which either prejudices or deals at all with the great question which my Noble Friend has in mind. On the contrary, if there is to be any reform of our procedure, it is surely advisable that the Orders of the House as they now stand should be clearly stated in intelligible language, and should be spaced so that the Standing Order that refers to any particular matter can be found by hon. Members, much more easily than at present, in a separate compartment, instead of dotted about as they have been added to the Standing Orders from time to time and placed here or there. The Committee on Procedure, of which I was a member, did devote a great deal of time and heard a great deal of evidence in all directions and from all points of view as to great alterations in our pro-
cedure to accelerate the passage of Measures through the House and from various other points of view; but we made the separate recommendation that a small committee be appointed by Mr. Speaker, simply to revise the existing Rules and to make them intelligible. That and nothing else is now before the House, and I would say that, far from its being derogatory to the dignity of the House to deal with this small matter, it is an essential preliminary to considering intelligently any fundamental alterations in the Rules themselves.
The Leader of the House has given such a clear explanation, not only of the genesis of these Amendments, but of their scope and of what they purport to do, that it is quite unnecessary for me to add anything further. I would only say that I entirely disagree with my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings, and that there is no confusion between two totally different things—the one the mere tidying up and rendering intelligible of the Rules of Order as they are, and the other the consideration of perhaps necessary fundamental alterations in those Rules of Order. Those are two totally separate things. All that the House is asked to do to-night is to pass this preliminary work, which has involved a great deal of labour, and which could not possibly have been carried out except under the expert guidance of my, right hon. Friend who presides over the committees of the House, and with his able aid and that of other Members of the Committee. We ought to be very grateful to them for the work they have done, and nobody more than my Noble Friend who has strong views as to the alterations of procedure that ought to be provided for in our Rules. I cannot agree that there was any need to introduce this contentious subject at all. The matter is one which, as it seems to me, should go through as a matter of course, with a vote of thanks to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have devoted their time to this very necessary preliminary work.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to offer anything in the way of opposition to these proposals; I rise merely to enforce an interruption that I made at the commencement of business to—day and at the
time when this Committee was set up, namely, to express the view that, on a Committee of this sort, dealing with the Standing Orders of the House, which affect every Member of the House, every party in the House should have secured representation. I do not say that any one of us had any desire, as a matter of entertainment, to be engaged on the job that this Committee have been doing. Judging by the results of the work, it is too much like schoolmasters correcting boys' essays to make any appeal to me But I would put this point very strongly. that, if the Government were seeking what they said they intended, namely, the wider alteration of the Standing Orders, every section in this House should be represented on the Committee which does that. I want to say to the Leader of the House that this is precisely the kind of committee to which appointments should not be decided on a purely numerical basis. Indeed, one of the most important things about the Standing Orders is the extent to which they secure the rights of minorities, and in the framing or revision of Standing Orders minorities should have as great a say as the bigger and more powerful parties, because one thing that has always been obvious to me is that the big battalions can always protect themselves. It is the small groups who require something in the nature of rules and regulations to see that the liberties of the House, which are of very great importance if the institution means anything at all, should be fully and adequately safeguarded.

10.6 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the method in which these alterations have been received by the House generally makes my task in replying to the Debate a very light one indeed. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) regretted losing one fixed day for Supply. I think if he were devoting his special attention to Supply and making up his mind that the one day in the week on which he would be here for that purpose would be Thursday, he would find in practice that he would usually arrive on a day when Supply was not being taken and that it was on some other day. That was the real justification for this alteration, that the
taking of Supply on Thursday was a rule which was more honoured in the authorised breach, if I may use that term, than in the observance, authorised because the old Standing Order provides that Tuesday could always be taken away from Supply.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is a Member whose interest in procedure we all know and respect and value, but I am afraid on this occasion he has not shown his usual industry in inquiring into what was the real object of this Committee, because if he or any other Member of the House wishes for bigger alterations or improvements in procedure, this is an absolutely necessary preliminary to it. I have always regretted that there have not been more Members of the House who have really made a study of the Standing Orders. I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy with a new Member who comes to read the Standing Orders and at last throws them away in disgust and says he cannot understand them. I remember some years ago a very clever old lady for whom I had been doing some legal business writing to me and saying, "I can speak, as you know, fluently six languages, and I can read three others fairly well, but I cannot understand the language of your legal documents." I can assure you, Sir, that my legal documents were to my mind easy reading compared with the Standing Orders as they are at present. To give one example, of what my right hon. Friend referred to—its being difficult to find what you wanted in the Standing Orders. Take the position of myself and the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means in acting as Deputy-Speaker. That is dealt with in Standing Order No. 1 and in Standing Order 81, and surely nothing much more inconvenient than that could be imagined. I think it only remains to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and to express the hope and confident belief that if he studies the revised Standing Orders, which will I hope soon be printed with these alterations, he will find that they give him every protection that he had before and perhaps greater opportunities of using his great Parliamentary skill within the limits of order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Hornsey, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the rural district of Strood, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1933, be approved."—[Mr. Hacking.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MIGRANT LAND SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

10.13 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: When we raised the question of the plight of British settlers in Victoria, Australia, during the Debate on the Dominions Office Vote in July we were unaware of any decision regarding the Royal Commission's Report by the Australian Governments, and so the Debate ended without the Secretary of State being able to tell us anything at that time as to what had been done in Australia or what would be the attitude of the British Government. We were all agreed who took part in the Debate, including the Secretary of State, as to the hardships that had been undergone by these settlers and as to the losses that they had sustained.
Let me recount what is the position. When the Empire Settlement Act was passed 11 years ago this scheme of settling people in Victoria was the first, I think, that was established and those who were encouraged to go and were given promises of great opportunities there were people with money. Numbers of families went from this country taking with them large sums of money, in some cases thousands of pounds. Without doubt they had accepted that position under false promises and without any possibility, as it appears, that they would be realised.
They were expected to have not less than £1,500 per family. Many of them hoped that they would lay the foundation for the future of their families, and they have not realised that position. They are without work or opportunity, and are in despair.
The British Government took steps to try to secure an inquiry into their case and into their plight and condition. It took years to establish the possibility of an inquiry, but ultimately an inquiry took place. A Royal Commission was appointed and it sat for two years. It had no powers. It could neither offer any remedy nor suggest any redress. But without doubt they came to the conclusion that the complaints of the settlers were justified, and they laid the blame upon the Victorian Government. We knew during the last Debate what had happened with regard to the Commission and what they had recommended, but we were not aware of anything which the Australian Governments were prepared to do. Almost immediately after the House rose for the Recess, we learned what was to be the attitude of the Victorian Government toward these settlers. As this is the first time the House has been made acquainted with them, I will give what I understand to be the proposals for dealing with the conditions and for implementing the report of the Commission regarding more than 300 settlers who are in such an awful position and condition owing to the treatment which they have received. These are, as I understand them, the conditions.
1. Settlers who have left or desire to leave their blocks are to receive cash compensation; single men £200; married men £300 with £50 extra for each dependent son or unmarried daughter. Maximum payment to any one settler, £500. Also full discharge from debts to the Crown, Widows of deceased settlers will represent their late husbands.
2. The cases of settlers who desire to remain on their blocks are to be examined by an assessor appointed by the three Governments. The assessor will decide whether it is in the settler's interest to remain on his block.
3. Settlers in whose case the assessor decides that it is not in their interest to remain on their blocks, will receive cash compensation as in 1 above.
4. Settlers who remain on their blocks will be dealt with by the Closer Settlement Commission and will have their capital liability written down by the amount which they would have received as cash compensa-
tion under 1 above, less £100 which will be paid to them in cash. They will also be eligible under the Closer Settlement Act, 1932, for further concessions during the next five years.
5. There is to be some provision for the payment of private debts contracted by the settlers.
6. In the case of settlers who have already left Australia, payments will be made to cover loss on exchange.
I have given broadly an idea of the intention of the Victorian Government as a means of settlement of what they call the dispute between the Australian Governments and these discontented and dissatisfied settlers who went out from this country to Victoria. I think that I am quite safe in saying, after the bundles of correspondence which I have received on this matter, that it does not meet the position, and that they are to-day very discontented and dissatisfied and determined in their view that those conditions do not meet the situation at all. I will quote again from a document which has since come from the British Overseas Settlers' Association of Victoria. I will give their point of view as explained here in one or two paragraphs. They say:
An extraordinary offer of compensation was made to us on the basis of £200 for a single man, £300 for a married couple, and £50 additional for each child up to four; no discrimination was made as to the amount of capital lost, length of time on land or on any other grounds; but even ignoring those aspects the amounts offered were so fantastic that the terms were rejected out of hand by the settlers. We have asked that the basis for compensation shall be the return of our capital, with interest, compensation over the period we have been here, and some minor adjustments.
We think it as well to reiterate the fact that we were neither paupers, nor unemployed, nor unemployable at the time we were recruited, but were persons of some substance, our average capital being approximately £500 to £1,000. Apart from our capital, up to 10 years of our lives have been wasted, and, in cases, the careers of our Children ruined, and this, as the report of the Royal Commission confirms, not through any fault of our own.
I think I have fairly stated the case as regards the attitude of the Victorian Government, and the attitude towards their suggested settlement of the settlers themselves. I have been taking part in migration schemes for 10 years and am a supporter of migration, if it can be arranged satisfactorily and if opportuni-
ties can be provided, but I am convinced that in this case it was a scandalous scheme that ought never to have been undertaken, that the promises have never been realised and ought never to have been made, and that the offer now made by the Victorian Government is far from meeting the needs of the case.
I have received a note from the Agent-General of Victoria, in which he says that more than 200 of these people will remain on their blocks, but at the same time that I received that letter I also received a telegram from these settlers in which they say:
It is said by the Attorney-General of Victoria that the Bill does inevitably rough justice. It is more rough than just. Inadequate compensation forces settlers remain on uneconomic holdings. Settlers compelled to leave must accept compensation at depreciated currency. Urge you exert pressure force British Government accept share responsibility.
I have said on many occasions that we in this country should not be the milch cow for every part of the world nor for every part of the British Empire and that we should not be the parties to find money for everything that is going, but I am quite convinced that in this case, although we may have no legal responsibility, we have a moral responsibility to these people which really ought to be met by the Government at this time of the day. In the interests of the question that we were discussing to-day regarding the possibilities of migration in the future and regarding our relations with the Dominions in the future, we cannot afford to allow this sore to continue, without taking some steps to try and deal with it satisfactorily.
I believe that during the discussion that took place in the State Parliament of Victoria, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Labour party, suggested that the State Government ought to pay these people in accordance with their demands, which I have read out. If the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs can do anything which will encourage the State Government of Victoria or the Commonwealth Government of Australia, who were associated with them in this scheme, to meet the needs of these people, I hope that he will take whatever steps can be taken in order to see that they meet their justifiable liability to these people. I am convinced that the right
hon. Gentleman himself cannot ignore the position of affairs. He knows the facts. He has agreed to what has been said regarding the position of these settlers. We say that it cannot be left just where it is. There must be something more done for these people, otherwise there will be no reason, no possibility and no opportunity for establishing any other schemes of migration to Australia while the position continues as it is to-day. Our position is that we want something more definite than we have been able to get up to now. It has been convenient and suitable for the right hon. Gentleman when he could not answer the position in previous discussions, but he knows the facts to-day. He knows the condition of these people. I do not think that the Government can leave it where it is. They ought to be able in some form to influence the Australian Governments to meet the claims of these people or to do something to help them from this country.

10.25 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The particular aspect of this unfortunate matter to which I want to draw attention is that to which the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) referred in the latter part of his remarks; the moral responsibility which rests upon the Government in this country to remedy the ills which some of these people have undoubtedly suffered. I am not going into the particulars of the various cases, but I have had a considerable amount of correspondence which satisfies me that the flat rate arrangement which has been made by the Government of Victoria cannot, and does not, fairly meet the individual cases. It may be moderately sufficient in certain instances but there are other instances in which it falls far short of what should be the compensation to be awarded. In answering questions in this House the Secretary of State for the Dominions has constantly reiterated that we have no responsibility in the matter, that the responsibility rests with the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments. Legally he is probably correct in saying that no legal responsibility rests upon us, but surely there is a very heavy moral responsibility. When we consider the way in which these migrants were sent out, the way in which the scheme was sponsored and backed by our own Government, and when we are
unable to secure the Victorian Government making a settlement which is satisfactory to all the migrants concerned, it is inevitable that these migrants should come back upon us and say "it was owing to your backing the scheme that we went out; we imagined that the British Government was behind the scheme, and would see us through."
This is the particular aspect of the case which concerns the House at the moment. We are satisfied that the Victorian Government have gone a considerable way to try and put right the awful mistakes that have been made, but anyone who has read the report and seen any correspondence which has been sent home from the migrants concerned must be equally satisfied that there is a great deal yet to be done before it can be said that the ills they have suffered have been fairly compensated. I put a question to-day to the Secretary of State as to whether he had observed the admission of the Premier of Victoria, that real justice had not been done to the British migrants; and the reply I received was:
I understand that in that part of his speech the Premier of Victoria was referring solely to the question of flat rate compensation.
That is exactly the point to which I desire to draw attention, a flat rate compensation cannot do justice to all the migrants, and where injustice remains, if it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to succeed in getting the Commonwealth or the Victorian Government to remedy the injustice, I say that a moral responsibility rests on this Government to see that the injustice is remedied.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to support the plea that has been made by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who have laid stress on the moral responsibility of the British Government. I think it is something more than a moral responsibility. We often have lectures about the sanctity of treaties between nations. There was as solemn a pledge of the nation's honour to these migrants as there ever was in any agreement between one nation and another. Why promises made to our own people should not be as binding as promises made to foreign countries, is
something that I cannot understand. I have never had in the whole of my Parliamentary experience so many tales of human misery as I have had in connection with this business. I have a very close connection with human suffering in my own division, but the stories I have had from my own division are nothing compared with the tales I have had from Australia.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is putting it rather mildly when he says that this scheme was sponsored by the British Government. It was a deliberate act of governmental policy in this country. At the time the scheme was propounded it was the great scheme of the Government of the day for dealing with the unemployment problem. We were to place the superfluous men of the home country on the superfluous acres of the Dominions. There was a definite campaign to persuade men to go out. Government legislation was involved and Government money was involved. As has been demonstrated most clearly, there was not only the grossest negligence on the part of the Victorian Government to make this scheme out there a success, but there must have been the most complete negligence on the part of the British Government representatives out there to see that these people were being treated in any way in accordance with the bargain.
I have here a collection of letters from Australia. Monday is the day when the Australian post comes in. Every Monday for about six months I have counted on having from 10 to 30 Australian letters, and here I have what is merely a collection of yesterday's lot. Here is a letter which the House may allow me to read. It is a very plain statement in restrained Language, and describes the writer's position. Some of the other letters I have received describe our Dominions Secretary in such unrestrained language that I would not like to quote them. I know that he has been subject to a lot of that kind of thing in his lifetime at home. I have one letter here which says something about "a dirty dog," but I shall not read it. Let me read a letter that is in more restrained terms:
Sir,—As an oversee settler of Murrabit, Victoria, I would add my note of protest to the many others against the unjust and unlawful treatment being meted
out to us by the Governments concerned. We are the victims of the cruelest swindle and deception ever inflicted on mankind. Briefly this is my story: I was born and educated at Croydon, Surrey, England, and served in the Navy as a petty officer throughout the War. From 1920 to 1924, when I left England, I had a good and permanent position with a salary of £5 a week, also a share of profits, free medical attention for self and family, and a pension at 65. After a visit to Wembley Exhibition——
the right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary had some responsibility for Wembley Exhibition. Indeed at that time there was a talk of elevating the right hon. Gentleman to the peerage, and the title that was suggested was that of Baron Wembley——
—I became interested in the settlement scheme then being boosted by Australia House, and after repeated interviews and much inducement by Mr. Wyatt, and on the assurance that the scheme had the hacking of the British Government I decided to resign my post. That scheme has proved the finest specimen of confidence trickery ever recorded. In December, 1924, I arrived in Melbourne with my wife and child, £500 in capital of my own and several hundreds belonging to my wife. Then began the disillusionment. With others we were sent to a training farm at Elcho. What a farce! We were taught milking only. The rest meant cheap labour for odd jobs. The methods need were intended for dry forming, and we poor migrants were intended for irrigation plots only. The 12 months' training promised us was actually six weeks and the 10,000 farms we were to select from after training never existed except in the disordered imagination of the Lands Department. After training we were sent with others to Murrabit on the 'take it or leave it' principle and dumped there. No house or fences—simply a barren waste of saffron thistles. The conditions under which we were thereafter forced to exist are too sordid for details, but we were clearly given to understand from the start that if we protested in any shape or form our leases would be cancelled and our families put on the road. This dodge and various others have been played and lost on me. I had the worst block in creation. The 72 acres would not grow sufficient to feed a goat and my cows were always forced to roam the countryside in search of food. Several died of starvation. If I could detail half of the dreadful experiences endured through the years they would fill a book. The many injustices inflicted on us by those in high places to compel us to shut up would stir the world. But they well keep. However after three years of slavery and 16 hours a day and reduced to semi-starvation, I applied for and received a transfer to another holding which had previously been
abandoned by two Australians. Imagine my feelings on learning that after three years of hard work and the whole of our joint capital expended in impovements we were transferred, carrying a debt of approximately £500. What a swindle! But the worst followed when we discovered that the accumulated debts of the departed Australians were also transferred to us including water and shire rates. What a proposition! We protested and were told that someone must pay. Woe to me. We protested again and our lease was cancelled. These are only a few of such instances and the years of misery and hardships that followed I dare not dwell upon. Can you wonder that we are bitter and that our very souls cry for revenge? My wife has suffered terribly through this swindle. Privation, hard work and worry necessitated her undergoing four very serious operations within two years and the heart weakness that has followed means she will never be strong again. Can I forget that? A thousand times, no. The hard fight which we fought for seven years and won, culminated in the Royal Commission and our charges and complaints proved to be justified. We are therefore entitled to demand adequate compensation to enable us to start anew, but the Governments concerned have added insult to injury by suggesting a sum hardly sufficient to cover personal debts.
I will not continue. There are two other pages in which he goes on to indicate the difficulty of trying to make a start again after having attempted to clear what is up against him, on this allowance. I want the Dominions Secretary to realise his responsibility in this matter. He has been far too easy in his handling of the people out there. There was no reason why all these years of agitation should have been necessary to get an inquiry at all. It should have been easy for any responsible person of capacity to go out there and survey the place in a month or two and to ascertain that something serious was wrong and that it was necessary that something should be done. It was shocking that these men, sent out by this House, should have to carry on a tremendous agitation before anyone here at home would listen to them at all. Now that their agitation has been proved to have been more fully justified, it is up to the Government to see that they are not merely put off with some money compensation that has no relation either to what they have lost or to what they have suffered, but that amounts should be paid to these men that will make it possible for them either to make a start under decent conditions out there or to come home to this country and resume life among their friends.
I urge the Dominions Secretary. As I have pointed out in this House before, he has been very energetic about some things. He despatched a Commission away to investigate into the affairs of Newfoundland, where the interests of the bondholders were engaged. He chose a representative and responsible person to go away out there because the finances of Newfoundland were in difficulties. With all the Dominions at some time or other, even with Ireland, he has shown energy, though entirely in a wrong direction. I suggest that in this matter he should develop that strain of obstinacy which is in him. To me, it is invariably used wrongly, but he should use it on this occasion in the interests of these people who were sent out there.
Every Parliament that has sat in this House since 1923, every Member of Parliament and of every Government that has been in power here, has a responsibility in this matter. We cannot just shoulder the blame on to the Victorian people. We definitely sat and discussed it here and came to our conclusions, we gave facilities for advertising and boosting, we allowed these people to be promised, and we encouraged them to go. It was developing the Empire, the far-flung parts of our Empire. Great speeches were made here about it. It is not good enough to make these people the victims of fantastic political schemes, badly carried out. There may be—and this point has been dealt with by both the previous speakers—some time in the future when it will be possible to develop schemes by which people can go from one part of the world to another and take up occupations in different parts. It may be that the time may come when the British Empire will be one great unit and citizenship in it will be transferable easily all over the place. I understand that that is an ideal of the Conservative party and the present National Government. It is not one of my ideals, but if it be an ideal worth pursuing, then this first experiment, if left where it is, is not a good advertisement for any future efforts that may be made in the same direction.

10.43 p.m.

Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I am very grateful to be allowed to add a word to the appeal which has been made from all sides to the Government to do some-
thing, if they can, in this very difficult matter of the settlers under the Victoria Government. I realise that our Government are not directly responsible, but, as has already been said, they have a moral responsibility. I feel that it is not an exaggeration to say that the good name of the whole question of settlement in Australia is at stake, and that if this matter is not fairly and properly dealt with, future migration will be an exceedingly difficult matter. Good faith, the keeping of promises, is at the very bottom of successful migration and settlement, and if it once becomes the general opinion that a particular Government or a particular country are unreliable, then they may say goodbye to any successful scheme of settlement.
But I have a more personal interest in this matter, because indirectly I was somewhat responsible for encouraging a farmer and his wife and four or five children to accept the offer of the Victoria Government, which was given, I believe, with the support of the British Government, and to go, eight years ago, to Victoria to settle there. They gave up a farm in this country in order to do so. They went to that country with £1,400 which they had saved. They were an extraordinarily good, thrifty, hardworking family. They wrote to me to-day to say that every penny of their money has gone, that their misfortunes were almost wholly due to the fact that the farm on which they were placed was entirely misdescribed, and that the value they were charged was entirely fictitious All these facts have been supported by the Royal Commission that has inquired into the matter. Therefore, it is in no sense a matter of dispute.
They were hopelessly defrauded at the outset and now, after losing all they have got and working hard for eight years, they are offered £300 by way of compensation if they clear out. At 4 per cent., that is £12 a year for a man, his wife and five children to live upon. That is the position of these people whose only fault was—I cannot imagine a family who would make better settlers—that they trusted the word of the Victorian Government, backed as it was by the British Government. I hope that the Dominions Secretary will be able to do something more practicable, not only in the interests
of our good name but in the interests of the migration and settlement of the future. Would it not be possible to tell the Victorian Government that if they will give fair compensation we will do something towards that compensation? Although we may have no legal responsibility, we have deep interest in the success of migration in the future, and, if we are going to make a success of it, it is essential that we should keep faith as soon as possible with people who have accepted our word in the past.

10.47 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I certainly would not join issue with any speech delivered this evening in condemning in the strongest possible terms the inadequate arrangements made and the failure of the Victorian Government to provide what they had promised to provide in the original arrangements. I also do not join issue with any Member who deprecates in the strongest possible terms the treatment which many of these people have received. It would be equally a mistake, however strongly we may feel on this particular case, either to exaggerate it or to fail to put it in its true perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), if he will allow me to say so, painted a picture in a sort of Maxton tone. He started off by saying that this scheme was launched as a solution of our unemployment problem.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As a contribution.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, as a contribution. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) made a statement, which I will deal with in a moment, that the first condition for these migrants was that they were to have a capital of £1,500. If we accept that statement, what earthly good is it to talk to the House of Commons or the country about a scheme for the solution of the unemployment problem of this country when the minimum with which these unemployed people were to leave the country was £1,500? It is too absurd for words.

Mr. MAXTON: He said it at the time.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with what anybody said at the time. I was not responsible; I am merely stating the facts. Again, who is there who will
get up in this House and say that this particular scheme, with a minimum capital subscribed and everyone going out there as a potential capitalist, would ever be put forward as a means of dealing with the unemployment problem in this country?

Mr. MAXTON: Have you read the Debate there yesterday?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not care; my hon. Friend is always fair, and if he read the Debate and the fact was that they had at the outset to possess a certain minimum capital, he has too much experience of the unemployment problem in this country to assume that that was held out as one of the solutions of it. No; it was dealing with an entirely different aspect. In the first place, let us assume that it was to be a scheme solving or even making a contribution to our unemployment problem dealing with millions. The House may be surprised to know that, in this scheme that is supposed to tackle our unemployment problem, the maximum number involved was 700. Is that not sufficient to indicate the absurdity of talking about this scheme being a contribution to our unemployment problem? Then, when the 700 were examined further, when the Commission of Inquiry is held, 300 odd frankly admit that they have no complaint. The problem, then, is reduced from 700 to 400. I give those figures, not because I am going to argue for a moment that the Victorian Government have done justice, but rather to show the actual facts of the situation so far as numbers were concerned. Let me say also that, whatever might be said about my responsibility, no one in this House can argue for a moment that from the instant when I became responsible and heard of these cases I did not continue to press for an inquiry. I was not only dissatisfied, but I used every influence and power possessed by the Dominions Office to demand immediately an inquiry into the whole situation. I not only pressed for that but, after the inquiry had been held and when there was, in my judgment, a totally unnecessary delay in coming to a decision on the finding of the inquiry, I never hesitated to use all the power and influence of the Office in trying to get a speedy settlement for these people. I am sure that my hon. Friend, if he
knew the nature of the correspondence, would be the first to admit that. But I deplore it for another reason. I frankly say this is the kind of thing that must inevitably do more harm to the real spirit of migration than anything else, because we cannot have folks returning and writing letters such as my hon. Friend described without creating a feeling that justice has not been done to them in the Dominions. Whilst I admit that, however, I want to correct the impression indicated by my hon. Friend that the Premier of Victoria was himself dissatisfied with the settlement. The inference is drawn that he would like to have done more. That is the deduction made from that statement.

Sir R. HAMILTON: From his own statement.

Mr. THOMAS: Let me clear that up at once. It was only an extract from his statement. I now have the opportunity of reading his own words. I say quite frankly that when I read that short summary of the statement it conveyed to me the impression that this was an unfair settlement and a settlement which he would like to see improved upon. That is the obvious deduction from the first paragraph; but the statement in full, which I will read, shows that a very different interpretation must be placed upon it. He said—I am summarising—at least, I am taking the relevant parts of his statement:
For these and other reasons, and in the desire to secure a prompt settlement, the conference decided that the only possible basis of compensation was on a flat rate.
It was in respect of this decision that the Premier of Victoria stated in the Victoria Parliament on 9th November that the decision was not real justice. His words were:
I admit the roughness of the justice done, in fact, I admit that it is not justice at all, but it was the only way out that we found when we met representatives of the other Governments. Time was the essence of the contract. It will take another commission 12 months more to arrive at true justice. We believe that though we have produced something which is unscientific it will nevertheless end a very unhappy phase in the history of Victoria.
He had previously indicated that a number of their own Australian settlers were not getting the advantages which they themselves were giving to the British
settlers. I want to make it quite clear, so far as the Prime Minister of Victoria was concerned, that when he used that word it was not in the sense that he wanted to do more, because if he had given any indication, or if the Victorian Government or the Australian Commonwealth Government had given any indication, of any sort or kind, that they were prepared to do more, I say without hesitation that I would have pressed for the maximum to be done, which is what I have done all through. But the House must face this situation. First, this was a special scheme——

It being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord Erskine.]

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman implied that not only a special scheme, but a scheme peculiar inasmuch as it required a minimum capital sum, was put forward. The hon. Member mentioned that the minimum capital was £1,500. As a matter of fact it was only £300, which was the minimum capital required. Ultimately it was reduced to £200. It is not true to say that the average capital of all the 700 people was between £500 and £1,000; the average was £437. I am giving the actual figures. So far as their debt to the Crown is concerned, they are being relieved. Anyone who has already proved his capacity for this work and is desirous of continuing, can continue. A number of them have decided to continue. At first sight this flat rate may appear unfair, and I can understand that some hon. Members will say: "Here is a man who lost £1,000; why should his compensation be the same as a man who only lost we will say £500?"—that is a hypothetical figure. At first sight that would appear a sound comment, but investigation shows, what may be brought out in favour of the Victorian Government, that it did not follow that those men who lost the most money were the most efficient. The investigation showed that there were people who lost more money than the others because they were not so efficient as the others. The investigation also showed——

Mr. MAXTON: What about the training?

Mr. THOMAS: That rather proves my point, because you cannot ask a Government to compensate on the basis of inefficiency as against efficiency.

Mr. MAXTON: If a Government promised to train men for a reasonable period and did not do so, how can the men be condemned for inefficiency?

Mr. THOMAS: To train a man for a given period is one thing, but to make that man efficient in that given period is another.

Mr. MAXTON: My point is about the given period.

Mr. THOMAS: I am pointing out that all the blame is not on the one side. So far as the British Government are concerned, what I put to the House is this: Who else should they trust but the Australian Government. When you deal with Dominions and you enter into negotiations with Governments, what right have you to expect that pledges and promises will not be adequately fulfilled? The Government of the day of 1923 entered into a commitment. The responsibility for the provision was taken by the Australian Government of Victoria. In 1926 there was a first intimation of dissatisfaction, and action was taken by myself as I have already indicated, and, in the end, having regard to the Royal Commission's Report, and to the decision of the Government, the problem that faced me was this: Should I help these settlers more by merely continuing to allow them to suffer? Should I serve their best interests by continuing to press the Government for an immediate settlement?
On balance, having regard to all the circumstances, I frankly say that the choice I had to make was whether, considering all the hardships, difficulties and sufferings of these people—with all of which I sympathise—it would not in the end be better to reach a prompt and immediate settlement rather than allow the thing to drag on, because I felt that I was serving their best interests, because I was satisfied that no better settlement could be made, and, above all, because I could not for one moment admit either the legal or the moral responsibility. I admit the moral responsibility of bringing pressure and influence to bear on the
Australian Government, of urging them to do all they could; but if for one moment it were assumed that the British Government was to hold itself responsible for migrants who went to Australia with capital, what right should we have to say that the same responsibility did not rest upon us for those who went to Australia, or Canada, or anywhere else, without capital, and who were prepared to fight their own battle? Because I could not take that responsibility, I do not take it now. While I do not think it would be right for the British Government to do anything, though I deplore all the hardships, difficulties and sufferings, I say to the House of Commons that no man could have done more than I have done at least to mitigate the suffering of those to whose claims I have already referred.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has finished now? He says that he is doing no more for these people.

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, no; it means this, that I intimated that for bearing the cost of the settlers' claim, that is to say, the cost that they incurred in presenting their claim, I am taking the responsibility on behalf of the Government. It is true that the claims have not yet been paid, that is to say, there has not been a settlement; but it is equally true to say that I am pressing for an immediate settlement because, unless there is an immediate settlement, the whole question would of necessity have to be reopened again. If I may answer my hon. Friend's question, I shall not have finished until I have done all I can to see that the findings and decisions are given ample effect.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not propose to continue the discussion except to say, first, that the right hon. Gentleman and the House—all of us—cannot escape more responsibility in this case than, I think, in any other case that could be brought up. I myself was taken out to Australia under very similar promises many years ago, and, had it not been for friends in England, I suppose that we should literally have starved. I do not think anybody understands what it is to be stranded in one of the Dominions where there are no arrangements for dealing with people who are stranded as these people are, and where they have to rely upon whatever friends they can make to
keep themselves going. Now they are being told, as emigrants used to be told years ago, that the Government has no responsibility. There was this special scheme for special people with some small means of their own and it is proved that numbers of them had, relatively, no training at all; also that many of those who are remaining on the holdings are doing so because they have no option. Whether they will be able to get a living or not, they are unable to move. I do not consider that we can get out of this by saying that it is the business of the Government in Victoria, because the people on this side who put inducements before the migrants were under our protection and did it under our auspices. The right hon. Gentleman says: "Whom could we have trusted more than the Government of Victoria?" in allowing this to be done, but if it is proved, as it has been proved, that that Government by negligence or otherwise allowed these people to be taken out under false pretences, surely we have some responsibility for them. Even all those years ago, when we came home the Government, while they would not pay any money, altered the whole system by which advertising for emigration was carried on, and I think, if he could prove that we had been in the same position as these people, even all those years ago, we should have had some sort of compensation. It was not exactly like this, but we were as much taken in as the people have been taken in. I should not like to charge the right hon. Gentleman with not having sympathy and not having done everything he could. It is the one thing needful that we have not done, and that is to find some money, or failing that, use whatever pressure we can on the Victoria Government.
But I stress the point that I do not think we can get out of our responsibility, and, as we are not getting satisfaction to-night, we shall ask my hon. Friend to find some opportunity. We must, I think, take the judgment of the House on this in some way. I do not know how we can do it at present. It is like the Vote on armaments. We shall have to put down a Vote of Censure. We do not want to do that. What we want is that the House should express its opinion that this Government, failing the Victorian Government, should find the
necessary money. The right hon. Gentleman says that what is going to be given is not good enough and that more ought to be done. We all agree about that. The numbers are not material. If it is only one we ought to see to it that justice is done. Neither does it matter very much that it will help to cure unemployment. The fact is that it was done for the benefit of Victoria, for the benefit of ourselves and the people who went out. We thought it a good thing for them. It has turned out a very bad thing. They risked everything on the good faith, which we backed, of the Victorian Government.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not only press the Victorian Government, but that he will give up the idea that in the last resort we are not responsible and we cannot find any money. I think of the people for whom we find money on the Continent and elsewhere. We shall have to find money in regard to Newfoundland—that is certain. I really do not want to make a fight of this, because the right hon. Gentleman said, as did also the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that we are all agreed. The whole House is agreed, and I should like it brought to the House in some way. Let us decide. The House of Commons, having responsibility, has the right to stand up to its responsibilities and to vote money, and to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it must be found. I rose really to say that, but I had to say the other things. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman and that letter, I realised that some of my friends who received letters from me when I was in Queensland would find that we matched one another in a lot of similar ways. When we talk about postbags we have to think that behind all those letters there is a great deal of human suffering and that people have been badly swindled.

11.17 p.m.

Major MILLS: I should like to make a concrete suggestion to the Secretary of
State, who I am convinced sympathises with these unfortunate settlers. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we are all in this matter, there is no question of any party feeling. Can we not at this late hour put pressure upon the Victorian Government and get them to ask the Chairman of the Royal Commission to fix what compensation should be payable in the case of these 400 people; or, if they are not willing to put the power of arbitration in the hands of any individual, to call upon the Chairman of the Royal Commission to report on what compensation will be fair, and to give it serious consideration.

11.18 p.m.

Major PROCTER: As one who has lived in Australia for some time I must say that the original scheme must have been a very rotten one, for generally the climate of Australia corrects the errors of its politicians. The country is so generous that there must have been very grievous errors made with the choosing of the ground for these settlers. I, like many other Members, have received letters of complaint from Australia, not only blaming the Victoria Government but expressing the thought that this Government is responsible. I would ask the Secretary of State for the Dominions if there are any of those 400 people who wish to come back to the Motherland; if so, could not this wealthy Government at least pay the passage-money of those people? I would ask him also that, after the tumult has died and if his representations to the Victoria Government should fail, he should ask his fellow Members in the Cabinet and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a Cabinet grant to these migrants, if not for the good name of Australia, at least for the good name of this country, who trusted the Victoria Government to do the right thing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.